1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the last reduced “loan repayment” at the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as the “loan repayment”; and (b) the following reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for determining the Defendant’s assertion added at the court of first instance.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Of the Plaintiff’s instant loans claimed by the Defendant, KRW 39,541,00 on December 10, 2009, KRW 39,541,00 on April 12, 2010, KRW 39,541,00 on July 12, 2010, respectively, and KRW 39,541,00 on July 12, 2010, respectively, has expired on December 9, 2014; and the extinctive prescription of a commercial claim expires on April 11, 2015, the Defendant is not obligated to pay each of the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. On December 31, 201, the fact that the repayment period of the instant loan was December 31, 201 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the date on which the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant to pay the instant loan is apparent in the record that the date on which the Plaintiff applied for the payment order against the Defendant on July 6, 2015, and thus, the instant loan claim is deemed to have not elapsed five years, which is the extinctive prescription period of commercial claim at the time of filing the lawsuit.

In addition, according to Gap evidence No. 7, the claim for the loan of this case is the right to be preserved, and the provisional attachment registration on June 19, 2012, which was made on June 15, 2012 with regard to the real estate owned by the defendant as the object of provisional attachment, was cancelled on September 24, 2015, and the provisional attachment registration was cancelled on September 24, 2015. Thus, the progress of the statute of limitations is suspended during the period when the provisional attachment registration is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1102, Apr. 25, 200), and in this respect, the statute of limitations for the loan of this case has not expired again from the time when the provisional attachment registration was cancelled.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion does not seem to have any mother or reason.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is to be accepted.