1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 23, 2007 to April 3, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant around 1997 (hereinafter “instant loan”) did not conflict between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the said loan and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. On the gist of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserted that ① the extinction of the statute of limitations for the instant loan claims, ② even if the family loan claims are recognized, the defendant did not receive any remuneration for about 10 months under the condition that the instant loan is sugared, and thus, the instant loan claims were extinguished by the exemption of debt or set-off.

B. Determination 1) As above, the Plaintiff determined the period of repayment as of April 6, 1998 at the time of lending the loan of this case to the Defendant. However, on February 1, 1999, the fact that the payment was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 30, 1999 that the said loan was due and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on March 18, 2015, which was ten years after the expiration of the statute of limitations, is apparent. However, on the other hand, if the Plaintiff partially repaid the loan before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the interruption of prescription takes effect as an approval of the debt, unless there is any dispute as to the amount of the loan, and it was detained by the Defendant as a criminal case around January 23, 1996, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid the loan of this case to the Defendant under the name of the principal and the Defendant on March 18, 2015.