1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that, in order to legally delegate a lawsuit to the defendant's attorney, the defendant's seal impression should be attached to the defendant's president or manager. However, the power of attorney submitted by the defendant's attorney is not attached to such seal impression, and there is an error of law in the defect of the power of attorney against the defendant's attorney.

The manager of the Commercial Act, on behalf of the business owner, holds the power of representation to conduct all judicial or extra-judicial acts on behalf of the business owner (Article 11(1) of the Commercial Act), and according to the written evidence Nos. 11 and 2 of the Act, B was appointed as the Defendant’s manager on February 10, 2012, and the above B did not attach the seal imprint.

Even if the defendant's attorney is fully recognized as having prepared a letter of delegation of litigation with the intention to delegate the lawsuit of this case, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion on February 1, 1996 that C obtained a loan of KRW 500 million from the defendant, the plaintiff's mother-friendly D provided real estate as security for the above loan.

Despite the fact that the term of loan was three years, the defendant voluntarily asserted that the term was two years, and tried to proceed with the auction procedure on the D-owned real estate.

Accordingly, in order to prevent the progress of the auction, the Plaintiff paid part of the principal and interest of loan to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant. Ultimately, the Defendant paid the above amount without any legal ground. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the above amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 27 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, the determination on the extinction of the statute of limitations is more advanced than 10 years thereafter, even if the time when the Plaintiff partially repaid the lawsuit or the time when the Plaintiff claimed that the period of repayment is due, whichever was the starting point of the calculation of the period of February 1, 1999.