A. The Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with Defendant B on November 20, 199, including KRW 5 million, KRW 15 million on January 5, 2003, KRW 5 million on February 7, 2003, KRW 5 million on February 7, 2003, KRW 4850,00 on January 5, 2004, KRW 5 million on November 18, 2004, KRW 184 million on August 13, 2005, KRW 40,000 on August 13, 2005, and KRW 40,000 on August 17, 2005, with Defendant C and her husband on March 28, 2006, with the interest rate of KRW 2 million on a yearly basis.

B. Defendant B paid interest to the Plaintiff by July 23, 2007, but thereafter, Defendant B did not repay the principal and interest of the said loan.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from July 24, 2007 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the date of final payment of interest, to the day of full payment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the three-year extinctive prescription has expired in accordance with Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, since there was no claim on interest after September 2007.

However, "claim for the delivery of money or goods within a period of one year" under Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code refers to a claim for a fixed period of not more than one year. Thus, even if interest claim is interest claim, it shall not be paid regularly within a period of not more than one year, it shall not be required for the short-term extinctive prescription of three years under the above provision

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da25302 delivered on September 20, 1996). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the interest amounting to KRW 40 million was to be paid at a fixed period of not more than one year. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above interest claim cannot be deemed to have expired.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and this is accepted.