1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 50 million and interest and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant's defense that the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case has expired.

Pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act, a stock company shall be deemed to be a merchant even if it does not engage in commercial activities (Article 5(2) of the Commercial Act); a merchant's act for business purposes is deemed to be a commercial activity (Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act); a merchant's act is presumed to be for business purposes (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act). A merchant's act of lending money to the defendant who was the plaintiff's employee at the time is presumed to be an auxiliary commercial activity conducted for business purposes under Article 47(2) of the

It is difficult to view that the presumption was reversed solely on the ground that the interest rate on the instant loan is similar to the deposit interest rate in a commercial bank at the time. Thus, the instant loan claims constitute commercial claims.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, in the purport of promising the Plaintiff to approve and repay the instant loan obligations, made and agreed to repay the instant loan by September 27, 2008. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 26, 2018 when the five-year extinctive prescription period has already expired. Thus, it is evident in the record that the instant loan claims were extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .