2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

A. On February 10, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she lent money to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 55.3 million) (i., KRW 15.3 million following the issuance of a promissory note on February 10, 2002; KRW 5.3 million; the Defendant asserted that he/she paid money to the Defendant; and the period of extinctive prescription has expired as to the assertion that he/she was not a loan, but an investment loan; however, the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of payment and the claim of investment payment; however, the extinctive prescription has expired with respect to KRW 20 million on February 10, 200, but the remainder has ceased to exist with the approval of the debt; and thus, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 65.3 million to the Plaintiff and damages for delay.”

B. On February 10, 2002, the Defendant appealed, and around February 10, 2002, the Plaintiff withdrawn the loan amount of KRW 20 million from the issuance of a promissory note, and extended the purport of the claim against the Defendant based on the details of remittance. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the loan amount of KRW 20 million as of February 10, 200 and the Plaintiff’s loan amount of KRW 10 million as of February 14, 2002 and KRW 83.9 million as of the same day overlap (hereinafter “instant assertion”).

However, on October 13, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay 38,667,000 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff” by accepting part of the Defendant’s counterclaim and rejecting the remainder of the defense (hereinafter “the appellate court’s judgment on review”).

C. The Defendant filed a final appeal against the instant assertion, etc., but the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal on March 10, 2016, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant on March 15, 2016.