1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant made a loan of KRW 20 million on March 29, 2006 (hereinafter “the first loan”) and KRW 30 million on April 7, 2006 (hereinafter “the second loan”) and thus, sought reimbursement.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The first loan was not borrowed by the Defendant, but was invested by the Defendant, and was not obligated to return the investment amount due to failure in the business. 2) The second loan was not received.

Even if such payment was received,

Even if it was paid as investment money, there is no obligation to return.

3) Even if the Defendant borrowed each of the instant loans, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not take any measure except with a peremptory notice on the repayment on March 30, 2010, and the instant lawsuit was filed on October 18, 2013, and the statute of limitations expired for each of the instant loans. As to the statute of limitations defense on October 18, 2013. 2. First of all, the Defendant deemed that the statute of limitations defense was expired for the instant loans. The Defendant, along with C, needs to make money while running a business in a adult entertainment room, and there is no dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff paid money from the Plaintiff (at least the amount

A) The facts that the Plaintiff received money, while the Plaintiff also paid money with the knowledge that the Defendant would operate the entertainment room business under his/her name; the Defendant’s operation of the entertainment room together after registering the business under his/her name does not conflict between the parties, or by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to witness D and C, and there is no reflective evidence. The act of borrowing business funds cannot be deemed as an act of preparing commercial activities, which is the object of business, in view of the nature of the act itself. However, in a case where the actor’s subjective intent was a preparatory act for the business and the other party was aware that the act was a preparatory act for the business, the provisions of the Commercial Act concerning commercial activities apply (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da104246, Apr. 13, 2012).