1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the argument as to the cause of the claim against defendant B, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant B on September 4, 2010 as a start-up fund of D, a field crushing company for security documents, barring any special circumstance, the defendant B is obligated to pay the above borrowed amount to the plaintiff KRW 100 million and delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff, along with Defendant C, borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 100 million of the above borrowed money and damages for delay. However, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C borrowed the above money from Defendant B along with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence No. 2, it is only recognized that Defendant B prepared a certificate of 100 million of the borrowed money to the Plaintiff and received the above borrowed money through the account in the name of Defendant C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument against the defendant C is without merit.

2. Defendant B’s assertion and determination that the Plaintiff’s loan claim was completed since five years passed from September 4, 2010, which was the date of borrowing the loan.

As seen earlier, Defendant B borrowed the above KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff under the name of the start-up fund, which is a field crushing company for security documents, as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above loan claim constitutes a commercial claim to which the period of extinctive prescription of five years applies.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s above loan claim occurred on September 4, 2010, and it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on February 14, 2019 after the lapse of five years from the lawsuit. As such, the Plaintiff’s above loan claim is deemed to have expired upon the completion of the statute of limitations, and thus, Defendant B’s aforementioned defense is the same.