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. The fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant around August 2003 without fixing the due date for payment is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 20,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's defense and the plaintiff's defense

A. Since the Defendant’s defense that the instant loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable, since it is apparent in the record that the instant loan claim was filed on March 22, 2016 after the ten-year period has elapsed since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed, since the instant loan claim had already expired by the statute of limitations.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff’s re-claimed that the statute of limitations was interrupted since the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repay the instant loan claim several times in 2005 and 2007, which was prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of the above claim solely with the statement of No. 1, which was submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim is groundless

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it has expired by prescription. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.