The defendant shall pay 92,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from June 9, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 4 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant prepared and issued a loan certificate of KRW 92 million to the plaintiff on January 4, 2012, and thus, the plaintiff lent KRW 92 million to the defendant on the same day. Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the above loan amount of KRW 92 million to the plaintiff.

2. As to the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant’s aforementioned loan was derived from the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction cost that was not paid to the Defendant in 2006, and the claim for construction cost is subject to the three-year short-term extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and the extinctive prescription has already expired on the date when three years elapsed from January 4, 2012.

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to extinctive prescription against the Defendant under Article 162 of the Civil Act, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to extinctive prescription against the Defendant, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to extinctive prescription against the Defendant, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to extinctive prescription, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 9, 2020 to the day of full payment, which is clear that the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff as to KRW 92 million and the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.