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

A. On February 1, 2006, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 17 million to the Defendant’s bank account in the manner of remitting it to the Defendant’s bank account. On February 1, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deduct KRW 16 million from the Defendant’s above loan obligation of KRW 17 million with respect to the Defendant’s seedlings and food cost claim against the Plaintiff in the middle of February 2006.

Then, on February 24, 2006, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff lend KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on February 24, 2006, and the Plaintiff remitted the remainder of KRW 29 million, excluding KRW 1 million, to the bank account of the above C on February 24, 2006. The payment period of KRW 30 million was set on August 24, 2006.

However, the defendant paid 70,000 won to the plaintiff on February 15, 2007 and did not pay the remaining money. The above 700,000 won should be first appropriated for the repayment of the statutory delay damages calculated at the ratio of 5% per annum to 30,000 won of the above loan principal, and since the statute of limitations for the above repayment was interrupted, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 30,000 won and damages for delay from February 16, 2007, which is the day following the above repayment date.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was around 2006, the Defendant operated D in the Defendant’s name in the Defendant’s name. However, on February 1, 2006, the Plaintiff received KRW 17 million in the amount transferred to the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s name and KRW 16 million in labor expenses, etc.

In addition, on February 24, 2006, the defendant planted seedlings on the land of the plaintiff, non-party E and F and received the cost of seedlings and planting in the name of the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 30 million was a loan, 700,000,000,000 claimed by the Defendant that the Plaintiff was repaid by the Defendant does not mean that the Defendant lent the loan to the Plaintiff, and thus, the ten-year statute of limitations expired.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff.