1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim No. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant on October 8, 2002 by setting the interest rate of KRW 6% per month, due date for repayment as of December 18, 2002 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2004, etc. As of February 25, 2003, it is recognized that the principal of the loan was 5,40,000,000 as of February 25, 2003.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the principal of the outstanding loan of this case 5,400,000 won and damages for delay.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, since the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations, the Defendant’s reimbursement period for the instant loan claim was December 18, 2002, and the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 5,00,000 out of the instant loan to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2004 is as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is obvious in the record that it was filed on May 20, 2014, after the lapse of 10 years from April 14, 2004, the final repayment date of the Defendant’s reimbursement date, and thus, the instant loan claim in this case was extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the filing date of the instant lawsuit.

As such, the defendant's above defense is justified.

On the other hand, the plaintiff re-claimed that the above extinctive prescription had been interrupted because he received KRW 300,000 from the defendant on June 20, 2004, which was prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, the plaintiff's re-claimed that the above extinctive prescription had been interrupted. As to the above claim for repayment, it is not sufficient to acknowledge it only with the entries of subparagraphs 2 and 3 as well as the result of the plaintiff's personal examination.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.