1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts admitted are those of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1.(a)

(1) Since the part of paragraph (1) is the same, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the absence of special circumstances to determine the cause of the claim, the Defendant is jointly and severally obligated to pay D the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 53 million a loan of KRW 63 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% a year from April 7, 2000 to the date of full payment, which the Plaintiff seeks, as a result of the due date, from April 7, 200 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant loan”).

3. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the plaintiff's claim on the loan of this case.

In the Changwon District Court Decision 2004Da6846 decided Jun. 15, 2004, the above court, jointly and severally with the defendant and D, notified the plaintiff of the payment order to pay the amount of 63 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 30% per annum from March 7, 1999 to the date of full payment. The above payment order was finalized on July 3, 2004 by the plaintiff and D, or it can be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of the whole statements and arguments set forth in subparagraph 1-2 and the whole arguments.

The plaintiff's request for the payment order of this case is clearly recorded that it was filed on August 20, 2015 after the lapse of ten years from the above, and the plaintiff's claim of this case was extinguished by the prescription before the plaintiff's request for the payment order of this case, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.

4. Determination on the Plaintiff’s ground for the interruption of extinctive prescription

A. The plaintiff is the principal debtor of the loan debt of this case, and the plaintiff re-claimed that the extinctive prescription was suspended by having attempted to reach an agreement with the plaintiff from Sep. 2005 to Jan. 20, 2006.

According to Gap evidence No. 19, the defendant stated on December 30, 1997.