1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, either of the parties to the dispute or of the whole facts:

On March 18, 2002, C, who is the plaintiff's Dongbook, established the defendant, who is a corporation for the construction business, etc., and around that time, operated the defendant while serving as the representative director of the defendant.

B. The Defendant borrowed KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff on April 7, 2005, and KRW 160,300,000 from April 8, 2005, respectively, to use it as operating expenses. On April 8, 2005, the Defendant agreed to pay each of the above loans to the Plaintiff by October 7, 2005.

C. On May 10, 2006, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing (No. 3) stating that the Plaintiff will repay the above borrowed amount at a prompt time.

C was dismissed from office of the defendant's representative director around February 2009, when the defendant experienced managerial difficulties, and D was appointed as the defendant's inside director and representative director around that time.

E. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant, due to business depression, was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and completed the registration of continuation of company on January 19, 2016.

2. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 80 million to the Defendant around April 7, 2005 and KRW 1603 million around April 8, 2005, respectively, on or around April 8, 2005. The fact that the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to receive each of the above loans by October 7, 2005 is as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, unless there are other special circumstances, the defendant who is the lender is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the lender the total amount of KRW 240 million (=80 million + KRW 160 million) and damages for delay from January 1, 2007, as sought by the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The defendant defenses that the plaintiff's above loan claims were extinguished by the lapse of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period.

The Defendant, a stock company, the purpose of which is to save and build, construction business, etc., is operating expenses.