1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant against the Defendant based on the loan transaction agreement dated August 4, 1994.

The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant on August 4, 1994 as the due date for repayment on August 4, 1996; and there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not file a lawsuit seeking performance of the above loan claims against the Plaintiff until ten years have passed from the due date for payment of the loan claims against the Plaintiff; thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal and interest on the loan against the Defendant was extinguished due to the statute of limitations.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription had been interrupted by demanding the plaintiff to perform his/her obligation before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, but it is not sufficient to recognize the same only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. There is no other evidence to

In addition, even if the defendant notified the plaintiff to perform his/her duties as alleged by him/her, there is no evidence to prove that he/she had taken the procedure under Article 174 of the Civil Act, such as a judicial claim, within six months thereafter, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's claim for the principal and interest of loan against the plaintiff as of August 4, 1994 was extinguished by prescription, and since the defendant is dissatisfied with this, there is a benefit of confirmation. Thus, there is no obligation for the principal and interest of loan to the defendant as of August 4, 1994 between the plaintiff and the defendant as of August 4, 1994.

I would like to say.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.