1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to the cancellation is dismissed.

2...

1. If the judgment on the cause of the claim is added to the statement in the evidence No. 7, the purport of the entire pleading is added, and the plaintiff operating D's lending of KRW 25 million to the defendant on November 9, 2007, which was set on May 8, 2008 (hereinafter "the lending of this case"). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 25 million to the plaintiff and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

Although the plaintiff asserts that the amount lent to the defendant is KRW 40 million, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 2 was either remitted or directly delivered to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The defendant's defense is the defendant's defense that the period of extinctive prescription has already expired five years prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case as a commercial claim.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have conducted financial transactions as an operator of a lending company, and the Plaintiff's lending of this case constitutes commercial transactions under Article 46 (1) 8 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, a claim on a loan of this case is a claim arising out of commercial activities, and the period of extinctive prescription is five years, unless otherwise provided in this Act, the extinctive prescription shall expire if the claim arising out of commercial activities is not exercised for five years. However, if other Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate the short-term prescription period, such provisions shall govern.

In other words, the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was filed on March 18, 2016 after five years from May 8, 2008, the due date for repayment of the instant loan claim, which was five years from May 8, 2008. Thus, the instant loan claim had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. The Plaintiff’s re-defense 1 Plaintiff, the Defendant, on January 2013, 201, is 25.5 million won to the Plaintiff.