1. Defendant B’s KRW 49,500,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 18% per annum from October 6, 2007 to February 9, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 14, 2004, the Plaintiff set the amount of KRW 34.5 million to Defendant B as interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month.

B. On January 24, 2005, the Plaintiff set the amount of KRW 30 million to Defendant B as interest rate of KRW 1.1% per month.

C. Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff KRW 15 million in total, including KRW 3 million on August 30, 2007 and KRW 12 million on October 5, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan to Defendant B in total amounting to KRW 64.5 million ( = KRW 34.5 million) and thereafter, Defendant B was paid KRW 15 million from Defendant B. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 49.5 million ( = 64.5 million - KRW 15 million) and damages for delay.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan principal amounting to KRW 49.5 million ( = 64.5 million - 15 million) and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

As to this, Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff’s loans of this case were extinguished after the lapse of five years of extinctive prescription as commercial claims.

Since there is no evidence to deem that the lending of the above money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B constitutes a commercial activity, the ten-year general extinctive prescription period shall apply to each of the above claims, and since Defendant B approved his obligation by paying the Plaintiff KRW 15 million until October 5, 2007, it is reasonable to deem that the extinctive prescription of the above lending claim was suspended.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B's assertion is without merit.

In addition, Defendant B alleged to the effect that the interruption of prescription does not extend to the loan claims as of July 14, 2004, since the loan amounting to KRW 15 million paid to the Plaintiff was designated and appropriated as the loan claims as of January 24, 2005. However, the Plaintiff and Defendant B claimed the above KRW 15 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.