1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. As to the primary claim (as to the loan or the agreed amount under the quasi-loan for Consumption);

A. The plaintiff, around October 2007, delivered one promissory note, dated November 6, 2008, which was issued by the defendant as a director or representative director, to the plaintiff for the construction of a new E-ground neighborhood living facility in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, under a subcontract with the US, lighting, waterproof, flood control, tidal work, and covering construction (hereinafter "the construction of this case"). The defendant delivered one promissory note, which is the issuer G, G, face value, 60 million won, and due date for the payment of the construction cost, to the plaintiff around July 23, 2008; the plaintiff returned the above promissory note to the defendant on September 11, 2008; the defendant did not have any dispute between the defendant and the plaintiff on November 10, 2008; or the defendant did not provide for the payment of KRW 60 million to the plaintiff as a whole (hereinafter "the agreement of this case") or there is no dispute between the parties concerned, as a whole, and No. 4 subparagraph 13.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won and delay damages therefor (hereinafter “the agreed amount claim”) in accordance with the agreement of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant agreement is limited to the suspension condition for the Plaintiff to continue the instant construction. Since the Plaintiff failed to continue the instant construction after the agreement, and such suspension condition was not fulfilled, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff the instant agreement (the Defendant’s assertion as above).

(2) As seen earlier, the claim of this case was extinguished upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. (3) As to whether the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case has expired or not, the health class and the fact that the due date for payment of the claim was November 10, 2008 is the same.