1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or according to the purport of the whole entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, in order to raise the operating capital of C operated by the defendant's husband, the defendant may recognize the fact of borrowing from the plaintiff, on September 10, 2002, KRW 20 million (the repayment period shall be November 10, 2002), and KRW 10 million on February 11, 2003 (the repayment period shall not be fixed) in order to raise the operating capital of C operated by the defendant's husband. Thus, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the above borrowed money (the loan of this case) unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the loan obligation of this case was fully repaid, or that the loan claim of this case had already expired by prescription.

On the other hand, the facts that the Defendant borrowed a sum of KRW 30 million in order to raise the operating funds of C operated by the Defendant’s husband are as seen earlier. As such, the above borrowing act by the Defendant constitutes an auxiliary commercial activity conducted on behalf of the Defendant, and the statute of limitations for the loans of this case arising out of the above commercial activity is five years as a commercial obligation. The facts that the payment period or the establishment period was on November 10, 200 and February 11, 2003 are as mentioned above. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on September 11, 2013, which was clearly recorded on the record that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was filed on September 21, 2013 (the same shall apply where five years have passed since the statute of limitations expired since the Defendant delivered each letter to the Plaintiff on September 21, 2004). The claim of this case had already expired before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

As such, the defendant's above argument is reasonable.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant renounced the benefits of the completion of the statute of limitations by promising the Plaintiff to repay the said loan debt on or around April 2013 through July 2013, which was after the expiration of the statute of limitations for the instant loan claim.

The obligation as a ground for the waiver of extinctive prescription.