1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the issue

가. 원고와 피고가 2003. 9. 하순경 별지(☞ 갑 1)에 나오는 <부동산 임대차계약서(☞ 갑 1)>를 함께 만든 다음, 이에 따라 원고가 그 무렵 피고에게 임대차보증금 6,000만원을 지급한 사실과 그 후 위 임대차계약관계가 종료됨에 따라 원고가 피고에 대하여 위 임대차보증금 반환채권을 실제로 행사할 수 있었던 시점으로부터 이미 10년이 훨씬 지난 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

B. In the instant case where the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of the above lease deposit upon the termination of the lease agreement relationship, the Defendant asserts that “the Defendant has repeatedly approved the Plaintiff’s claim and promised to repay the claim during the period. The Defendant’s assertion of the objection and the expiration of the statute of limitations is extremely unreasonable.”

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the progress of the statute of limitations has already been lawfully interrupted is insufficient to acknowledge this point only with some descriptions of right and wrong of the plaintiff's assertion, Gap 2, and part of the defendant's personal examination result, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this point. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's claim has already been extinguished due to the wind that the statute of limitations has already expired cannot be accepted, and if there are circumstances, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's claim of this case is correct and cannot be accepted.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the lease deposit of this case.