1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the defendant, who is the Dong branch office, on May 30, 1998 (hereinafter "claim of this case"). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s defense regarding the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the instant loan claim expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. As seen earlier, the fact that the instant loan claim occurred on May 30, 1998 is deemed to run from the point of time, and the foregoing claim is deemed to run from the point of time. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on December 4, 2014, 100 after the lapse of 10 years thereafter, it is apparent that the instant claim had expired by prescription, the Defendant’s defense is well-grounded.

As to this, the plaintiff re-claimed to the purport that the statute of limitations has not expired as the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case within 10 years since the defendant agreed to repay the plaintiff's claim for the repayment of the loan of this case to the plaintiff around 2006. However, the plaintiff's re-claimed to the purport that the statute of limitations has not been expired as to the plaintiff's claim for the repayment of the loan of this case. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff

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