2...

A. The plaintiff's assertion made on March 3, 2005 that the plaintiff promised to pay 10,000,000 won to the defendant in return for two months as business expenses. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 10,000,000 and delay damages.

B. Defendant’s assertion ① In preparation for a case where the Plaintiff received goods from Co., Ltd. and provided them to the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not allow the Defendant to prepare a cash storage certificate, but did not lend the money to the Defendant, and there was no transfer of the above KRW 10,000,000.

② The above loan claim expired by prescription.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant, on March 3, 2005, prepared a cash custody certificate to the plaintiff on March 3, 2005, stating that "I swear that "I, on March 3, 2005, I have kept 10 million won (10,000,000 won) with a thickness of Ngrgr (Plaintiff) for business expenses for the plaintiff," and that "I, on March 3, 2005, prepare a cash custody certificate to the plaintiff, "60 days (excluding holidays and holidays)."

According to this, the defendant can apply the provisions of the Commercial Act to loans borrowed for business as a merchant or in light of the language and contents of the above cash custody certificate and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Thus, the five-year extinctive prescription is applied to a claim arising from commercial activities pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Since it is apparent that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on March 17, 201, five years after the maturity of the said loan claim, the above loan claim has already expired.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.