1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff extended a loan (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to the defendant on October 8, 2002 by 6% of interest per month, due date for payment as of December 18, 2002, and by December 18, 2002, and the defendant paid a loan of five million won to the plaintiff on April 14, 2004, etc. It can be acknowledged that the principal of the loan was 5.4 million won as of February 25, 2003.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal of the outstanding loan of this case 5.4 million won and damages for delay.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations, the following facts are met: (a) the period for repayment of the said loan claim was December 18, 2002; and (b) the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 5 million out of the instant loan to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2004, as seen earlier; (c) it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2014, which was ten years after the Defendant’s final repayment date, and thus, (d) the instant loan claim had already expired by the statute of limitations before the instant lawsuit was filed.

As such, the defendant's above defense is reasonable.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s re-claimed that the statute of limitations was interrupted due to the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 300,000 from the Defendant on June 20, 2004, which was prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claimed that the statute of limitations was interrupted. As such, the Plaintiff’s re-claim is not sufficient to acknowledge the aforementioned assertion solely with the statement of

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.