1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff 22 million won on June 8, 2006 until June 21, 2006. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay the above 22 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants were to receive KRW 19 million from the Plaintiff as the discount of notes, but this constitutes commercial claims for the wholesale business of fishery products, and the extinctive prescription of five years has expired, and thus, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. First of all, we examine whether the statute of limitations of the instant claim expired, and the Plaintiff was partially repaid on May 30, 2006, and then did not have been repaid until now. In full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants may recognize the fact that the Defendants borrowed money from the Plaintiff with business funds for the wholesale business of fishery products. Accordingly, according to the above facts acknowledged, the instant claim constitutes commercial claims as borrowing the money for the business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10098 Decided March 11, 2010) However, it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2006, which was five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations of commercial claims, from June 21, 2006, when the contractual term expired.

Therefore, since the statute of limitations of the claim of this case expired, the defendant's defense of the statute of limitations is justified.

(A) As the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is not separately determined. Even if it is a civil claim, it is evident that the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.