The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 1995, the Plaintiff (the first trade name: C; hereinafter “C”) is a company established for the purpose of automobile comprehensive service and manufacturing business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who established C with eight representative directors of the Plaintiff, including D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) together with the Plaintiff’s representative director D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”).

B. On March 23, 1998, the Defendant prepared a receipt stating that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff at 1.2% per annum (the monthly interest shall be calculated on a daily basis, and the period below the month shall be calculated on December 30, 1999), the repayment term shall be determined as of December 30, 199 (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing of this case”), and the amount of KRW 100 million, and issued it to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As stated in the loan certificate in this case, the Defendant did not borrow KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff and repay it even after the maturity date of December 30, 1999. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 102,130,411, including the loan amount of KRW 100 million and interest thereon, KRW 2,130,411, and delay damages from the day after the maturity date of the loan.

B. The defendant did not actually borrow KRW 100 million from the plaintiff, and it is merely the preparation of the loan certificate of this case in the form of receiving KRW 100 million as the plaintiff's shareholder's dividend payment.

Even if the Plaintiff, based on the loan certificate of this case, has a loan claim against the Defendant.

Even if the loan claim of this case was extinguished by the lapse of the five-year prescription period at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is improper.

3. Determination

A. Even if the authenticity of the relevant legal doctrine is recognized, the court shall have the clear and acceptable reflective power to deny the content of the statement.