1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the defendant and his wife C are liable to pay 10 million won and damages for delay with the payment amount unpaid to the plaintiff since January 2000 through January 25, 2002, because the defendant subscribed to one unit of 400,000 won per unit of account (50,000 won per month after the receipt of the payment of the payment of the deposit) and 10,000 won per unit of account, and the defendant did not pay the payment of the deposit even though he received the payment of 10 million won. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay 10 million won and damages for delay with the payment of the deposit or loan unpaid to the plaintiff. The defendant asserted that the above obligation against the plaintiff has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

2. Even if it is assumed that the Plaintiff’s credit payment or loan claim against the Defendant is recognized, the extinctive prescription expired as examined below.

In other words, the above credits can be exercised from the time when each payment date arrives on the relevant payment date, and the period of extinctive prescription is proceeding (the extinctive prescription is in progress from the end of January 2002, which is the first half of the 2000 lending date or the end of January 2002, which is the last day of the 2002 lending date where the above credits are viewed as loans). Meanwhile, according to the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of subparagraphs B-1, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 600,000 on June 12, 2002, and KRW 40,000 on September 11, 202.

Therefore, even if the initial date in calculating the extinctive prescription period of the foregoing deposit claims was considered as of September 11, 2002, ten years have passed from this point, and the extinctive prescription period as of September 11, 2012, which was earlier than the date of the instant lawsuit, expired, and the said deposit or loan claims were extinguished.

Meanwhile, according to the statement No. 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, around September 4, 2007, a content-certified mail, stating that the Plaintiff shall perform the obligation of repayment by September 7, 2007.

However, this cannot be seen as a new extinctive prescription from that time on the ground that a peremptory notice for performance was given within six months from that time, and there was no judicial claim or seizure.