1. As to KRW 73,955,735 and KRW 24,069,842 of the said money and the said money, the Defendant shall from February 22, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. The defendant, around November 28, 2003, entered into a contract to obtain a loan of KRW 30 million from the Sung-dong Saemaul Savings Depository and delegated the right to receive and withdraw the loan to the non-party B. The above community credit cooperative paid KRW 30 million to the account in the name of the defendant who used the non-party limited liability company C’s seal imprinted by the representative director on the same day and transferred the claim to the plaintiff around April 18, 2014. The principal of the above bank loan remains 24,069,842, interest 49,85,893 won to the plaintiff. The defendant can be acknowledged as payment order based on the whole oral arguments with the plaintiff and the defendant, or with Gap evidence No. 1 through No. 9, which is calculated based on the annual interest rate of KRW 7355,735,535, and the duty to pay KRW 250,201,2500,000,000 per annum from 25,215.

2. The defendant's defense asserts that the loan obligation of this case constitutes a commercial obligation, and since the loan date falls under November 28, 2003, the five-year commercial extinctive prescription has expired.

Although it is difficult to view the lending of funds to the members of a credit cooperative by the community credit cooperatives as the purpose of profit-making in general, if a member who received a loan from the community credit cooperative received a loan for his/her business as a merchant, his/her lending claim shall be deemed a commercial claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da10793, Jul. 10, 1998). However, there is no evidence to regard the Defendant as a merchant, and the Defendant borrowed money in order for an individual to use it as a

Even if a commercial activity does not constitute a commercial activity, and such borrowed debt cannot be viewed as a commercial debt, Supreme Court Decision 10 November 10, 1992.