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

In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the plaintiff paid KRW 27 million to the defendant and C around May 19, 2004, the defendant violated the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Receipt of Money in relation to the payment of the above money, thereby having received a summary order of KRW 3 million (U.S. District Court Decision 2006Da20803), and C was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months (U.S. District Court Decision 2007No3572). However, it is difficult to view that the above facts of recognition alone alone lent KRW 30 million to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Even if the plaintiff lent 30 million won to the defendant around May 19, 2004, it can be seen that the plaintiff lent 30 million won to the defendant.

Even if the Defendant asserts that the above credit was extinguished by the statute of limitations, the above loan constitutes a loan with no fixed term of time, and if there is no fixed term of time, the statute of limitations shall run from the time when the credit was established. It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 9, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from the above lending date. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s above loan credit expired by the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.