1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim and the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the Seoul District Court of Namyang-si rendered the above court of 99 Ghana2131 on June 10, 199 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,90,000 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from October 12, 1997 to May 13, 1999, and the amount of KRW 25% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment (hereinafter referred to as "loan claim of this case"). The above judgment can be acknowledged that the defendant made a judgment on July 8, 199.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense, etc. as to the statute of limitations defense, defense that the defendant's debt of the loan of this case against the plaintiff was extinguished by the statute of limitations. Thus, the loan of this case was contracted with the ten-year statute of limitations from July 9, 199, the day after the above judgment became final and conclusive. The fact that the payment order of this case was filed on December 9, 2015 after the lapse of ten years from July 9, 199 is apparent in the record, and the loan of this case was extinguished by the expiration of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the defendant's defense is justified.

As to this, the Plaintiff approved the existence of the above debt prior to the completion of the statute of limitations on the instant loan obligations.

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's second defense is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff re-registers the resident registration cancelled on October 30, 2002, and corrected the resident registration number on January 28, 2003. Thus, the defendant's assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations for the loan debt of this case is a abuse of the statute of limitations. However, the above circumstance alone is that the defendant exercises the plaintiff's right before the expiration of the statute of limitations for the loan debt of this case.