1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 257,250,000 as well as KRW 71,50,000 among them, from June 6, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the court below found that the Plaintiff lent KRW 91.5 million to the Defendant around June 29, 2005, by setting the lending period to five months from the lending date, and the interest rate to twenty percent per month (hereinafter “the lending of this case”). Since the Defendant repaid KRW 20 million around November 23, 2012, and appropriated it for the principal of the loan of this case, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 71.5 million to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion (1) that the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim had expired by prescription from November 30, 2005, when the Plaintiff had been able to exercise the claim, around November 30, 2010, when five years had passed since the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the Defendant: (a) as seen earlier, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim was due on November 29, 2005; (b) the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2014, when five years have passed since the expiration of the prescription period; (c) on the other hand, it shall be deemed that the Defendant implicitly acknowledged the entire obligation, unless there is any dispute as to the amount of the loan partially repaid by the obligor after the expiration of the prescription period; and (d) in this case, it is presumed that the Defendant renounced its interest to the Plaintiff upon knowing the expiration of the prescription period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3580, Jun. 12, 2001).

(2) In addition, the defendant No. 2 (Receipt) was the defendant's representative director C.