1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments as to the cause of the claim, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant borrowed 2,00,000 won from the plaintiff on April 12, 206 at interest rate of 20% per annum and June 12, 2006.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 2,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant's defenses that the above loan claim expired by prescription.

In order to constitute “claim arising from a commercial act” under Article 64 of the Commercial Act as to the prescription period for claim commercial claims, claims arising from only the act of commercial activity shall be limited to the debtor, and the claims arising from not only the basic commercial activity as provided in Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also the so-called “auxiliary commercial activity” provided in Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act, which is carried on by the merchant for his/her business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da10793, Jul. 10, 1998). However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in Article 47(2)4 of the Commercial Act, at the time of borrowing the money as provided in paragraph (1), the defendant is deemed to be a merchant and the defendant’s borrowing of the money is presumed to have been carried on a boiler sales business.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim is “a claim arising from commercial act” and takes five years’ extinctive prescription. The fact that the maturity period for the above loan claim was June 12, 2006 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the instant payment order was filed on August 11, 2014, which was five years after the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, it is deemed that the above loan claim had already expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.