1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 120 million to the defendant on February 1, 2007 as of February 28, 2007, by setting the due date for payment of KRW 120,000 to the defendant on February 28, 2007.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). Accordingly, the borrower is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 120,000,000 and damages for delay from March 1, 2007, after the due date for payment, to the lender.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s claim on the loan of this case expired by the statute of limitations on both parties. 2) The claim on the loan of this case is not only a claim arising from an act which has become a commercial activity but also a commercial claim subject to the five-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. The commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity which is performed by merchants for their business. In addition, according to Articles 5(2), 5(1), and 47(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, the company shall be deemed as a merchant even if it does not engage in commercial activity but also the act performed by the merchant on behalf of its business. Since the act by the merchant is presumed to have been performed on behalf of its business, the act by the company is presumed to have been performed on behalf of its business unless there is any counter-proof, and the act by the company is presumed to have been performed on behalf of the merchant for its business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7313197.7.

However, it is the business of lending money.