1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) each of the “as of December 15, 2006,” “as of December 15, 2016,” the “as of December 15, 2006,” the “as of December 15, 2006,” the “as of December 9, 2006,” the “as of December 15, 2006,” the “as of December 9, 2006,” each of the “as of December 15, 2006,” and the “as of December 10, 11 through 11, 200,” the “as of December 7, 2006,” and the “as

(However, the part used on February 2, 200) by the Defendant, Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the first instance court, which became separate and conclusive.

) The instant case (the first instance court: the Incheon District Court 2010Gahap2133, 2012Gahap17680, the appellate court 2013Na16109, the Seoul High Court 2013Na1616, the Supreme Court 2013Na1616 (Counterclaim): the Supreme Court 2013Da98710, the Supreme Court 2013Da98710, and the Supreme Court 2013Da98727 (Counterclaim) actively disputed the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the loan obligation of this case. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan obligation was suspended.

On the other hand, a judicial claim as one of the causes for interrupting prescription under Articles 168 subparag. 1 and 170(1) of the Civil Act refers to cases where a right holder claims a right which is a subject matter of lawsuit as the plaintiff as the defendant. However, as to the plaintiff's filing of a lawsuit, the case where the right holder claims a prescription as the defendant. However, it includes cases where the defendant has actively asserted a right in the lawsuit as the defendant's response and has accepted it. The effect of interrupting prescription due to the above response act takes place when the defendant has filed a lawsuit by exercising his/her right. However, even though the defendant's response, although he/she asserted a right by the right holder, he/she has rejected or withdrawn the lawsuit, it is without decision as to the claim