1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 45 million to the Defendant on December 6, 2001, KRW 15 million on November 2002, KRW 10 million on November 30, 2002, KRW 10 million on December 30, 2002, KRW 10 million on December 30, 2002, and KRW 45 million on December 30, 2002 can be recognized by the overall purport of pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 45 million and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired ten years after the lapse of 10 years from April 23, 2002, which was the date on which the defendant's final repayment was made. Thus, since the above loan claims have no fixed time limit and each claim has run from the time when the time when the time limit was established, the extinctive prescription should run from December 30, 202, which was the date on which the last loan was made. It is evident in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on July 26, 2016, which was the date on which the ten years passed from the lawsuit in this case, and therefore, the above loan claims had already expired before the lawsuit in this case was filed, and therefore the defendant's defense is with merit.

[Initial date of the extinctive prescription is the starting point of calculating the period of extinctive prescription, which falls under the legal effect requirement of the extinction of an obligation, and it constitutes a specific fact that constitutes the legal requirement of the defense of extinctive prescription, and thus, it is subject to the principle of pleading. Therefore, in a case where the initial date of the extinctive prescription differs from the initial date of the pleading, the court shall calculate the extinctive prescription based on the initial date claimed by the parties, under the principle of pleading. This is likewise applicable to the case where the parties asserted the date later than the initial date of the original date of the extinctive prescription, and there is no special reason otherwise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3586, Aug. 25,