1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff's statement to the defendant of July 21, 1997 and the same year

8. It is recognized that the loans of KRW 15 million and KRW 5 million on June 6, 199 have been lent respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 25 million and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's mother's defense of repayment is a defense that the defendant's mother satisfied all of the above loan obligations before the death of January 22, 2004, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above obligations only with the descriptions of the evidence of subparagraphs B (1) through 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of repayment cannot be accepted.

B. Determination 1 on the statute of limitations defense 1) Since the defendant defense that the plaintiff's above loan claim was extinguished due to the completion of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff could exercise the right to claim payment of the above loan to the defendant around April 2002, and the fact that the above loan claim against the defendant was about ten years thereafter did not have any particular dispute between the parties. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it seems that the above loan claim against the defendant was extinguished due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. 2) The plaintiff has received interest from the defendant through D, and thus, the statute of limitations was interrupted.

In general, where an obligor pays interest, it can be deemed as a ground for interruption of prescription (Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act) and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid interest to the Plaintiff solely with the statement of evidence No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statement No. 4, the witness testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings, the Defendant did not pay interest to the Plaintiff, and D received interest from the Defendant’s mother C.