1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Facts of recognition

If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 6 added the purport of the entire argument, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence No. 1-6, hereinafter "the cash custody certificate of this case") to the effect that he/she will repay 25 million won (hereinafter "the loan of this case") borrowed money from the plaintiff to the plaintiff several times from 2003 to 15 December 2010, 2010.

[The defendant asserts that the cash custody certificate of this case is forged, and even if not, the entry of the borrowed amount was altered. The penbook of this case is identical to the entry of Gap evidence No. 1-4, written by the defendant, and the defendant's name and side of the defendant's name stated on the cash custody certificate of this case is also the same as the defendant's seal affixed on Gap evidence No. 1-4, and it can be presumed that the above stampbook of this case is authenticly prepared by the defendant, in light of the above fact of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the loan claim of this case 25 million won and damages for delay after the due date of payment.

The defendant's assertion argues that most of the loans were repaid to the plaintiff over several occasions and paid only KRW 250,000,000. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations on the plaintiff's loan claim in this case, which runs the interest rate business, has expired.

In light of the above, the loan claim of this case is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff engaged in the interest rate business solely with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to prove that the loan claim of this case was caused by commercial activity. Thus, the loan claim of this case is ten years as stipulated in Article 162(1) of the Civil Act.