1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 1, 2006 to March 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s payment period for KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant on June 7, 2005 (hereinafter “instant loan”) shall expire 2006.

3. Since it can be recognized that a loan was lent to the Plaintiff as of 30.30,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 1, 2006 to March 17, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant loan constitutes a commercial claim since the Defendant, a merchant, borrowed money to raise funds for the operation of a private company, and that the instant loan constitutes a commercial claim, and that the period of extinctive prescription expires after the lapse of five years.

A claim arising from an act of both parties' commercial activity as well as a claim arising from an act of both parties' commercial activity is also a commercial claim to which the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also ancillary commercial activity carried on by merchants for their business (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da54842, Apr. 29, 1994). It is presumed that the act of merchants is carried on for their business (see Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act). Comprehensively taking into account the following purport, the Defendant’s loans at the time of borrowing the loans of this case, are recognized as being a merchant engaged in the trade name, direct goods, and textile products manufacturing business as “D” under Article 315 of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Factory Building at the time of borrowing the loans of this case.