1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. It is recognized that the Defendant prepared and delivered each of the following contents to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2004 in full view of the fact that there is no dispute over determination as to the cause of claim No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement No. 1, the statement

The location of each letter: DB by the end of March 30, 2005, the remainder of the construction cost of 130 million won and the remainder of 25 million won under the contract between B (Defendant) and A (Plaintiff) shall be given to A until March 30, 2005.

Provided, That the door frame construction cost shall be fully paid by B.

Each person: B (Signature and Seal) The provisional disposition made by A shall be the rate immediately higher than the date on which each letter is entered, and A Ha on December 2, 2004. According to the above fact of recognition, the defendant shall be liable to pay 25 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is nothing more than what was written in each subparagraph for “an smooth agreement in the criminal case” regarding the preparation process of the written statement of this case, and was aware that it would have been resolved smoothly thereafter, and it is also alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case and the Plaintiff’s claim in this case would be cruel. It is difficult to regard it as a valid defense as to the Plaintiff’s claim.

Since the Defendant asserts that the above claim of the Plaintiff was expired, the Defendant’s claim of this case against the Defendant had expired on March 30, 2005, and according to the above facts, it is recognized that the period of payment of the obligation under the letter of this case was March 30, 2005, and thereafter, the fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed on November 5, 2014 when five years have passed since the commercial prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act was obvious in the record, and thus, the statute of limitations on March 30, 2010 for the Plaintiff

B. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be subject to the ten-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated in the Civil Act.

A claim arising out of a commercial activity shall be either a claim arising out of a bilateral commercial activity, or a claim arising out of a unilateral commercial activity.