Around June 28, 2003, the defendant prepared to the plaintiff a certificate of loan to the effect that the loan will be repaid by December 31, 2003, but did not repay the loan to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant with an investigative agency on December 5, 2007, the defendant prepared a loan certificate to the plaintiff again to pay the plaintiff not later than December 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to repay the loan or agreed amount of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that most of the above loans were repaid to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such reimbursement.

B. The defendant's defense that the debt against the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.

However, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the time when the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant in 191, but the Defendant, on June 28, 2003 and December 5, 2007, prepared and delivered a loan certificate to the effect that the Plaintiff would repay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2003, thereby giving up the benefit of prescription after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the statute of limitations shall resume from the time when the benefit of the

I would like to say.

However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on August 8, 2016 in which ten years have not passed since December 5, 2007, which was the date of the final preparation of the loan certificate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was interrupted by the statute of limitations.

3. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.