1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “a loan of KRW 100 million to a mobile phone agent acceptance cost shall be paid KRW 3 million per interest per month, and shall repay the principal of the loan after one month from the date when the principal is requested to repay the principal.” The Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 100 million to the Defendant on November 25, 2008 and December 1, 2008 (=60 million KRW 40 million) under the above condition.

B. However, the Defendant paid monthly interest to the Plaintiff until August 1, 2009, but did not pay monthly interest from September 1, 2009, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repay the principal of the above loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant around October 2009.

C. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 100 million and the damages for delay calculated from September 1, 2009, which is the day following the defendant's last payment date of interest.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the defendant stated that "if a person lends KRW 100 million to a mobile phone agency's acquisition cost, he/she will pay an interest rate of KRW 3 million per month, and repay a loan after one month from the date he/she is requested to repay the principal." The plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant on November 25, 2008 and December 1, 2008 under the above conditions, and the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she requested the defendant to repay the principal amount of the loan of this case on October 209.

B. According to the defendant's defense that the debt of this case was extinguished by the extinctive prescription, there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant that all of the parties are merchants, and the defendant borrowed the loan of this case from the plaintiff as the cost of acquiring the mobile phone agency, the defendant agreed to repay the principal of the loan of this case one month after the date when the plaintiff was requested to repay the principal of the loan of this case from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to the defendant around October 2009.