2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 70 million between November 27, 1996 and March 10, 1998 to the defendant, and the defendant agreed on March 10, 1998 to pay the above loan KRW 90 million to the plaintiff by June 13, 1998.

(A) The defendant asserts that the above KRW 90 million was the money that he would pay part of the premium later when he acquired the plaintiff's shop, not the loan, but the plaintiff's shop. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 90 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense is defense that the above loan claim expired by prescription.

However, the facts that the repayment period of the above loan claim was June 13, 1998 are as seen earlier, and it is apparent in the record that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on March 2, 2016, because it was extremely apparent that the ten-year period has elapsed since the above loan claim had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Plaintiff did not take any legal measures against the Defendant, who was in a long-term prison life, the claim for the loan was not extinguished by the statute of limitations. However, the above circumstance cannot be an obstacle to the progress of the statute of limitations. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.