1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On August 8, 2004, the Plaintiff loaned 50,000,000 won to the Defendant at 12% per annum until December 2005 and 24% from January 2006.

(hereinafter “instant loan”) b.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal of the instant loan and interest at 24% per annum from October 8, 2009, since only the interest on the instant loan was paid until October 7, 2009, and thereafter no interest was paid thereafter.

2. Even if the plaintiff's assertion is acknowledged by the defendant, since five years have passed since the last financial transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant during the commercial period of August 31, 2009, the defendant was a merchant who was aware of the fact at the time of August 8, 2004 according to the witness C's testimony. The act of the merchant in accordance with Article 47 of the Commercial Act is presumed to be for business, and the act of the merchant in accordance with the merchant in accordance with the plaintiff's argument itself is presumed to be for business and commercial activity. Thus, even if the plaintiff's claim on the loan of this case is based on the plaintiff's own argument, the period of extinctive prescription has expired on August 31, 2014, which is the day before July 4, 2016, which is the day of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.

The plaintiff asserted that the loan of this case was not a commercial activity because the defendant was made as a part of his personal case with the help of the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to reverse the above presumption. Thus, the plaintiff's second defense is without merit.

As the Plaintiff promised to pay the instant loan on October 15, 2009, which the Defendant had known point, the Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription should be calculated from that time. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and even if so, there is no change to the fact that the extinctive prescription for commercial matters has expired.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.