1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The principal portion of the loan;

A. The fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on November 7, 2008 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) as to the cause of the claim is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 40,000 to the plaintiff.

B. 1) The Defendant’s assertion regarding the defense of extinctive prescription constitutes a commercial activity; thus, the lending of this case’s principal claim has expired at the expiration of the five-year extinctive prescription period. 2) In order to reverse such presumption by presumption, both parties to the judgment are not only a claim arising from an act of commercial activity, but also a claim arising from an act of commercial activity falling under only one of the parties to the judgment constitutes a commercial claim subject to the five-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity performed by a merchant for his/her business (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10098, Mar. 11, 2010). In addition, the merchant’s act of a merchant whose business operation is not clear is presumed to have been conducted for business operation pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act.

However, even if a merchant who does not engage in the business of lending money, there may be cases where he/she lends money for business interest or for business interest, or lends money for the purpose of acquiring interest. Thus, such a merchant's lending of money is presumed to be conducted for business, unless there is any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008). According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 (including the virtual number), and 3, and the whole purport of arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 3, the defendant is the owner of "D shopping" in the C market.