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

On January 14, 2009, the Defendant entered into an agreement on January 14, 2009 to pay the remainder of 3,0640,000 won after deducting 2,360,000 won of the above loans.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 3,064,00 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. 1) On November 13, 2006, the Plaintiff leased KRW 3 million to the Defendant on November 13, 2006 without setting the due date for repayment on November 13, 2006 is not in dispute between the parties. 2) On June 16, 2006, the Plaintiff appears to correspond to the above fact of loan first, and the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 3 is written as “B representative director of the CF corporation,” not the Defendant, in that the borrower is written as “B representative director of the CF corporation.”

Meanwhile, on January 14, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 3064,00,000 to the unpaid principal including the above loan, and submitted as evidence the evidence that the Plaintiff prepared the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) to the Plaintiff and possessed the original. However, according to the appraiser D’s appraisal result, the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) is merely the duplicate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of the original and the authenticity, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence.

In addition, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending as alleged above, and there is no other evidence to prove the above fact of lending.

3. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining 6.4 million won after deducting the amount of 2.36 million won for the plaintiff's repayment from the amount of the above loan 3 million won, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired due to the expiration of extinctive prescription.