1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,200,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 17, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having lent KRW 25,200,000 to the defendant around May 1998 without setting the deadline. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 17, 2015 to the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day after full payment.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations, and thus, the statute of limitations for a claim without a fixed time runs from the establishment of the claim. As seen earlier, the fact that the establishment date of the instant loan claim was around May 1998 is the same as indicated in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on December 7, 2015, which was ten years after the lapse of ten years from the lawsuit. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments in the witness testimony, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant approved the instant loan obligation by preparing and delivering a loan certificate verifying the existence of the instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff on March 207, 207, which was before the expiration of the statute of limitations period, since the above statute of limitations was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

I would like to say.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.