1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In light of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100,000,000 to the defendant on July 23, 2007, at any time at the time of the plaintiff's request, and to pay interest at the rate of 2.5% per month if the plaintiff is unable to pay within the specified period, and the plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from the defendant on December 31, 2007, respectively.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid loan amount of KRW 90,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s claim against the Defendant was extinguished by the lapse of five years, which is the period of extinctive prescription.

B. The extinctive prescription period of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to not only a claim arising from an act of commercial activity but also a claim arising from an act of commercial activity against both parties. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity carried on by merchants for business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da23195, May 12, 2000). While an act of borrowing business funds cannot be deemed as an act of preparing a commercial activity which is an object of business in view of the nature of the act itself, if an actor’s subjective intent is an act of preparing for business and the other party is also an act of preparing for business activities with the explanation of the actor, etc., the provisions of the Commercial Act governing commercial activity apply to the case where the actor’s subjective intent is acknowledged as an act of preparing for business activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da43594, Jul. 26, 2012).