1. The Defendant prescribed the Civil Act from November 27, 2018 to June 20, 2019 with respect to KRW 19.46 million to the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. From April 6, 2006 to December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 177,4150,000 to the Defendant, and among which, the amount of KRW 96,66 million was repaid, the Plaintiff remains a loan of KRW 77,550,000.

In addition, around June 27, 201, the Plaintiff repaid the amount of KRW 1,010,000 to the voice-gun office by the Defendant’s request. The Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant around February 6, 2015 and KRW 80,000 to the Defendant on June 29, 2016 through the Plaintiff’s account.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 79,460,000,00,000.

B. The Defendant’s claim for the loan that the Plaintiff asserted has already expired ten years, and the remittance to D and E is not the Defendant’s obligation.

From July 1, 2008 to April 1, 2009, 23150,000 won was borrowed from the Plaintiff, but the sum of 21 million won was paid over three occasions.

In addition, the money received from the plaintiff shows that at the time the defendant was donated to the plaintiff's real estate transaction as a precedent fee, etc.

2. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 3 as to the claim regarding the money transaction before January 2008, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 90 million to the defendant, defendant's wife G, D, and E from April 6, 2006 to October 9, 2007, and that the plaintiff was transferred KRW 90 million from February 14, 2007 to January 14, 2008, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the above fact of finding that the plaintiff was transferred KRW 30 million from D and E's account to the plaintiff and F's account. Even if the fact of lending against the defendant is recognized, the plaintiff's claim for the loan cancellation after the lapse of the statute of limitations from October 19, 207, which is the last lease date, was filed for the lapse of the statute of limitations.

In this regard, the argument is presented.