1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 200, E: (a) the period of repayment for the Defendant until October 31, 200; (b) the interest rate shall be 2% per month; (c) the parties agreed to pay in cash or goods at the end of each month; and (d) the drawing up, deliver, and notarized a certificate of borrowing that 1.50 million won was borrowed.

B. On March 20, 2002, E succeeded to the rights and obligations of E in 3/7 shares of Defendant B, who died on March 20, 2002, and Defendant C and D, who are children, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 2, Eul 1's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants are obligated to pay the Defendant B’s 64,285,714 won (i.e., KRW 150,00,000 x 3/7), each of the Defendant C and D’s 42,857,142 won (=i.e., KRW 150,000 x 3/7), and the delay damages therefrom, depending on their respective inheritance shares among the Plaintiff’s 1,50,000 loan obligations against the Plaintiff. (ii) The Defendants’ assertion are not E but FF companies operated by E.

Even if E borrowed money from the Plaintiff

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim was extinguished by prescription.

B. First, we examine the statute of limitations defense.

1) The lawsuit of this case as to the defendants' defense is clearly recorded from October 31, 200, when 10 years have elapsed since the maturity period of the civil statute of limitations from October 31, 200 to November 25, 2015. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants' defense of the statute of limitations is reasonable. 2) The plaintiff's re-port E and the defendants were granted the obligations by delivering the goods of the FF corporation to the plaintiff by May 30, 2005 in lieu of the interest on the loan of this case, and the payment was notified to the defendants on May 27, 2015, the statute of limitations was suspended. (B) The judgment of this case was suspended since Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6 through No. 9, and evidence No. 11-11 to 12 as a whole, and the purport of the whole arguments between FF corporation and the plaintiff as to the supply of goods by May 30, 2005.