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. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, around 2007, she spawn a final trauma in the entertainment tavern located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On December 31, 2007, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 6,000,000 from the Plaintiff and agreed to complete the credit amount until July 31, 2008,” with respect to the credit amount that occurred until then to the Plaintiff.”

C. Around January 11, 2010, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notice demanding payment of KRW 6,000,000 and interest, respectively, and on February 25, 2014, the same written notice was sent to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,000,000 on the loan certificate and the delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts that the above loan certificate's above loan is merely a credit equivalent amount claim, i.e., food service charge claim, and thus the extinctive prescription has expired.

In this regard, the loan for consumption is identical in that it is a contract to extinguish the existing debt and to establish the new debt. However, in light of the fact that the existing debt and the new debt are not identical in principle, while in the quasi-loan for consumption, it is distinguishable in that the identity is recognized in principle. If the parties to the existing debt agree to regard the object as the object of a loan for consumption, it is first determined by the parties' intent or quasi-loan for consumption. If the parties' intention is not clear, it cannot be said that the creditor lost its security and the debtor expressed his intent to disadvantage himself, such as the loss of the right to defense, unless there is any problem of interpretation of intention or special circumstances.