1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 62.5 million to the Defendant on April 21, 1988, and thus, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 50 million among them.

The defendant is a person who borrowed the amount of KRW 6 million from the plaintiff around 1988.

In addition to the amount of the above person, it is not sufficient to recognize that Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and testimony of the witness C have lent the money of the plaintiff's assertion to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to 6 million won and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment are asserted to the effect that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired.

As seen earlier or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff lent KRW 6 million to the Defendant on April 21, 1988 and did not separately set the due date. As such, the Plaintiff’s above claim against the Defendant against the Defendant ought to be extinctive prescription simultaneously with the establishment of the due date.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim is in progress from April 22, 1988, which was the day following the above lending date, and since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2016 after the lapse of 10 years from the said lending date, the said loan claim expired by the extinctive prescription.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant renounced the statute of limitations interest while promising the plaintiff to repay the above loan to the plaintiff in 2013 and 2016, which was after the completion of the statute of limitations.

However, the testimony of the witness C alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

After all, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit, and the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is with merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.