Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1's evidence and the whole arguments on the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 4,010,000 to the defendant on March 10, 2010 (hereinafter "loan Claim of this case"). Thus, it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation of the defendant from March 6, 2020, when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the plaintiff as to the above loan of KRW 4,010,000, and its scope.

Until January 20, 2021, which is the date of the ruling of this court, the court is obligated to pay the delayed damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act and 12% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay interest or delayed damages at the rate of 6% per annum from March 11, 2010, after the above lending date, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the above interest, etc. is justified only within the scope of the delayed damages recognized above, and the remainder is without merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim had already been extinguished after the lapse of the statute of limitations on commercial claims, the Defendant asserted 6% interest per annum as seen earlier by the Plaintiff.

person as a merchant; and

It is difficult to readily conclude the foregoing loan claim, and there is no other evidence to prove that the statute of limitations on the extinction of the company is applied.

Therefore, the extinction prescription under the Civil Act shall apply to the above loan claim. According to the records, it is recognized that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on February 27, 2020 before the expiration of 10 years from the above loan date.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the statute of limitations for the loan claim of this case has expired is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.