1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff can be found to have leased the amount of KRW 50 million to the defendant on July 1, 2003 without setting the interest and the due date for payment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obliged to pay the above principal of the loan amount of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff and the damages for delay.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the loan obligation of this case after the lapse of ten years from July 1, 2003, which was the above lending date, since the defendant's judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription had expired, the case was examined. The plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant on July 1, 2003 without fixing the due date for payment as seen above. It is obvious in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on June 19, 2014, which was ten years after the above lending date. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the loan claim of this case has expired.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

In this regard, the plaintiff acknowledged the defendant's debt since the defendant paid 1 million won, which is a part of the loan of this case, in two times around 2009, and thus, it is proved that the statute of limitations for the above loan of this case was suspended. However, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant paid her debt twice as such, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.