The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the records, it is just for the court below to find that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error in the rules of evidence

2. With respect to Article 2 of the Grounds for Appeal, where multiple claims relations with the same kind of objective are established by a continuous transaction between the same parties, it shall be deemed that the obligor, if he/she does not designate a specific obligation and performs part of the obligation, has approved the remaining obligation, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the interruption of prescription

(1) The court below held that the Defendant either paid the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 1,00,00 to KRW 2,800,000 or KRW 310,650,000 each month from November 8, 200 to April 15, 2013 when the Defendant is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation such as the instant loan, etc. In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Defendant either paid the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 485,00,000 to KRW 310,650,00 each month from November 8, 200 to April 15, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78,1790, May 13, 1980; 93Da14936, Oct. 26, 1993).

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the waiver of debt approval or the completion of extinctive prescription.