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. Comprehensively taking account of the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim No. 2, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have lent KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant around September 1996 by the agreement that the due date for payment by November 30, 1996. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 8,00,000 and damages for delay, barring any other special circumstances.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, since the defendant's above loan claim of the plaintiff was completed and the extinctive prescription has already expired, the defendant's defense that the defendant does not bear the obligation to repay the plaintiff's above loan claim. As so, it is acknowledged as above, the fact that the payment period of the plaintiff's loan claim of November 30, 1996 became due, and the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case only on October 15, 2013, which was about 17 years from the plaintiff, is apparent in the record. Thus, the plaintiff's loan claim of this case was extinguished after the lapse of ten years from the extinctive prescription period prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case. The defendant's defense is with merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different from this, so the defendant's appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. It