1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the loan claim as of December 19, 2001, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff extended 3,900,000 won to the defendant on December 19, 2001 and lent 1,131,000 won out of the above loan to the defendant until March 29, 2002. Unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiff is a person who has received payment from the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan No. 2,769,000 won and interest thereon to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant defense that the defendant paid the remainder of the loan to the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. In addition, even if the above loan was not repaid in full, the defendant defense that the above loan claim of the plaintiff was extinguished by the statute of limitations. Thus, as seen above, the fact that the repayment period of the above loan claim was on March 29, 2002 is recognized as follows. The fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on July 15, 2014, which was ten years after the payment period of the above loan claim, is apparent in the record. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining loan claim was already extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the prescription has been interrupted by allowing the defendant to repay 10,000 won on September 1, 2003, October 1003, 2003, and November 17, 2003, respectively, and 80,000 won on January 6, 2004, March 6, 2004, and October 3, 2004, respectively, prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 200,000 won on March 21, 2012, 201, 200, 200,000 won on June 14, 2012, and 17, 200,000 won on July 28, 2012, and 10,000 won on November 17, 2012, the Plaintiff is deemed to have remitted to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name. However, at the time of the application for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff is deemed to have transferred to the Plaintiff each of the above loans and the credits asserted under the following: