1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a new argument and judgment at the court of first instance, which the defendant raised in the first instance under the 3th page No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, along with the following addition. Thus, the same shall be cited by the main sentence of

2. The defendant's judgment on the new argument in this court had expired by the statute of limitations on April 7, 2008.

As a defense, the loan claim in this case is a general civil claim with a period of ten years, and in the absence of any proof as to the existence of a period of payment for the loan claim in this case, the period of prescription has expired from the time when the loan claim in this case was established with non-fixed bonds. It is evident that the application for the payment order in this case was filed on October 15, 201 after ten years have passed since the establishment of the above claim. Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the evidence evidence No. 1 and arguments No. 1 of this case, the defendant can be deemed to have discharged the loan in this case on August 27, 201 before the expiration of the period of prescription to the plaintiff on August 27, 201, and the defendant's repayment of KRW 11,100,000 has been established due to continuous transactions between the same parties, and the debtor's repayment of part of the loan claim in this case without designating a specific obligation shall be deemed to have been suspended, and thus, the defendant's repayment of the remaining obligation in this case shall be deemed to have expired.

3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.