2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was found to have lent KRW 6,000,000 to the defendant on May 24, 2002 as the due date for payment on June 30, 2002 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 6,00,000 to the plaintiff and the damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has expired. As such, the Defendant asserted that the loan claim in this case had expired, the facts that the maturity period of the above loan claim was June 30, 2002 are as seen earlier, and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on April 7, 2014, which was ten years after the lawsuit in this case was filed. Since the above loan claim had already expired before the lawsuit in this case was filed, the Defendant’s defense was well-grounded. 2) As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the above statute of limitations had been interrupted since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on or around December 2009 against the Defendant for a loan claim.

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 6, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as to the claim for loans, etc. under this court No. 2009Gada152747, but the plaintiff is found to have failed to comply with the order to correct address in the above lawsuit, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the complaint was dismissed on April 1, 2010 because the plaintiff failed to comply with the order to correct address in the above lawsuit. Thus, even if a judicial claim is made, the interruption of prescription is not effective (Article 170(1) of the Civil Act), and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff again filed a judicial claim

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, around March 2008, the extinctive prescription was interrupted since the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant as the case of fraud, and filed an oral claim against the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff’s repayment of the instant loan claim to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff.