1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 23, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. On July 25, 1992, the Plaintiff lent 36,000,000 won to the Defendant on July 25, 1992 (hereinafter “instant loan”); the fact that the Defendant drawn up a loan certificate with respect to the loan and issued it is no dispute between the parties; and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 4,00,000 out of the principal amount of the instant loan by the Defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining principal of the instant loan amounting to KRW 32,00,000 (=36,000,000 - 4,000,000) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 23, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the service date of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's defense is a defense that the ten-year extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case has expired. Thus, since the loan claim of this case constitutes a loan claim of this case under the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription period is ten years pursuant to Article 162 (1) of the Civil Act.

In addition, the statute of limitations has run from July 25, 1992, which was the date of the loan, since the loan claim in this case was not fixed (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da2463, Mar. 28, 1978). The fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on July 9, 2015, which was ten years from the date of the loan, is apparent in the record.

However, according to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 3-2 and 4-2 and the whole purport of the argument, the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she repaid KRW 4,00,000 to the plaintiff on June 2, 2015. Thus, it is deemed that he/she renounced the prescription benefit of the claim of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da12464, May 23, 2013). The plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is with merit, and the defendant's second defense is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.