2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 80 million won with 18% interest per annum from March 21, 1997 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the defendant, on June 20, 1995, prepared a certificate of borrowed money as of June 20, 1995 with the loan amount of KRW 80,000,000, interest rate of KRW 1.5%, and the due date of payment of KRW 1.5% on June 20, 2002. Under the above facts, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 80,000,000 and the interest or delay damages for the loan.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The assertion

The defendant asserts that: (a) the above loan certificate was not repaid after the non-party 1, the plaintiff's wife borrowed KRW 40,000,000 to another person who became aware of in the course of the defendant's introduction; and (b) the plaintiff did not actually borrow money from the plaintiff; and (c) even though the above loan certificate was not a domestic case, the defendant paid KRW 25,00,000 out of the principal amount of the loan as stated in the above loan certificate as KRW 80,000; and (d) the period of extinctive prescription was three years since the loan certificate was a loan between merchants, and the interest claim was set forth in the Commercial Act for three years; and (e) the period of extinctive prescription was three years since the lawsuit of this case was filed after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period; and (e) the claim of this case was all filed after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period under the above loan certificate.

B. Determination

First of all, the defendant's above argument 1 is hard to believe that the statement of No. 1 and the result of the defendant's questioning by the court of first instance as to the defendant's above argument 1, and the testimony by the non-party 2 as witness of the first instance trial is insufficient to recognize it. The above argument is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Next, in full view of the statement in Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole argument in the first instance court's trial as to the above argument, the defendant could have acknowledged that the defendant remitted the above amount of KRW 25,00,000 to the plaintiff through the non-party 3, which was the first instance court's ruling on March 27, 2007. However, there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant, at the time of the above repayment, declared that the above amount was designated and appropriated for the repayment of principal obligation under the above loan certificate, as to the above amount of KRW 25,00,000,000 as to the principal obligation under the above loan certificate, pursuant to Article 479 of the Civil Act, for a period from June 20, 1995 to March 19, 197, the above amount of KRW 25,200,000 (8,000,000) x part of the defendant's claim that the above amount was appropriated.

Finally, the plaintiff and the defendant are merchants in Busan-dong Busan-dong Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu 40,000 out of 80,000,000 on the loan certificate of this case, and the remaining 40,000,000 won are loan claims before the issuance of the above loan certificate, and there is no dispute between the parties. According to the above facts, the loan claims out of the loan certificate are presumed as subsidiary commercial activities pursuant to Article 47 (2) of the Commercial Act, and the loan claims out of the loan certificate are due to loan loan between the defendant and the defendant, and thus the period of extinctive prescription is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, and since the loan claims out of the loan certificate of this case were made out by the merchant under Article 163 subparagraph 7 of the Civil Act, the period of extinctive prescription has already occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant's loan contract of this case.

Furthermore, as seen earlier on June 20, 2002, as to whether the period of extinctive prescription has expired, the payment period of the claim stated in the above loan loan certificate is as seen earlier, and the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on April 28, 201, for which five years have passed since the lawsuit in this case was filed, is apparent in the record. However, as seen earlier, the defendant approved the debt in this case by paying to the plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 on March 27, 2007, and such approval has the effect of waiver of the prescription interest as to the interest claim for which three years have already expired, and the effect of the interruption of prescription as to the remaining principal and interest and damages for delay which have not yet been completed. Since the lawsuit in this case was filed five years after the date of payment, the defendant's assertion also has no merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from March 21, 1997 to May 20, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., with the records that the defendant is to serve the original copy of the payment order of this case from March 21, 1997, as the plaintiff seeks. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)