1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the judgment on the claim for a loan of KRW 12.5 million (A) and the entire purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including virtual numbers) as to the claim for a loan of KRW 12.5 million, the Plaintiff is found to have lent the above Defendant B the purchase price of KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff around September 1994, since it is recognized that the said Defendant lent the purchase price of KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 12.5 million to the above purchase price, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 12.5 million exceeding the above KRW 12.5 million. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(C) The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay on the premise that the agreement rate on the above loan was 24% per annum and that the repayment period was September 29, 1994, as stated in the claim, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the above interest rate and the payment period as asserted by the Plaintiff.

(D) Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 12 million and delay damages, barring special circumstances.

(2) A judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription (A) is based on the Defendant’s assertion that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired, so it is apparent that the instant application for conciliation was received by this court on April 26, 2018, when ten years have elapsed since the said loan was filed, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the said loan claim has expired by extinctive prescription.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B approved the above debt around 2001, and that on May 2008, the Plaintiff promised to repay the debt, as well as that the Plaintiff acknowledged the debt even in the lawsuit for ownership transfer registration filed against the above Defendant, and that he waived the benefit of prescription.

The debt approval as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription shall be made.