1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. As to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff (mutual C) supplied scrap metal, etc. to the Defendant (mutual D). The price for the goods that was incurred by March 2005 is KRW 36,970,000. The Defendant around that time failed to pay KRW 36,970,000 to the Plaintiff in lump sum.

b. The letter of loan was drawn up and awarded 1 million won per month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsured Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of an order to submit taxation information to the director of the Namyang District Tax Office, purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 36,970,00,00, as well as damages for delay, which was established by quasi-loan for consumption.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. The claim for the loan was extinguished by prescription.

B. Determination 1) Even where the short-term extinctive prescription is applicable, if there was an agreement on quasi-loan for consumption as to the above claim, it is reasonable to presume that the contract for quasi-loan for consumption was a commercial activity conducted by the merchant for business purposes, and the claim newly created therefrom is subject to the five-year extinctive prescription as a commercial claim (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1363, Dec. 22, 1981) (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1363, Dec. 22, 1981). (2) As such, the agreement was made to pay in installments the amount of KRW 36,970,000 per month from March 3, 2005 to January 37, 2008, the final due date for payment of the above loan claim is the end of March 2, 2008. It is evident that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on January

Since the above loan claim had already expired by prescription before the lawsuit of this case was filed, the above argument is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.