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. In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 evidence and the whole arguments, the plaintiff is recognized as having lent 3 million won to the defendant on Nov. 19, 200 with 48% per annum on Mar. 3, 2001 and delay damages.

On the other hand, since it is recognized that the Plaintiff was operating a bond business in the name of “C” at the time of the above lending, the Plaintiff’s above claim against the Defendant constitutes a claim arising from commercial activities, and accordingly, the five-year extinctive prescription period is applied pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, and the five-year prescription period from March 3, 2001, which is the due date, expired.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, from June 2007 to November 201, 2012, the extinctive prescription was suspended since the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order based on the above loan claim, and in fact, some of the money was collected.

However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, since the time of seizure of the plaintiff's claim for the above loan against the defendant had already expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.