1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the defendant can recognize that the defendant agreed to pay 25 million won to the plaintiff by January 15, 2004 (hereinafter the "agreement amount") around December 8, 2003. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 25 million,000,000, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defenses to the effect that the extinctive prescription of the contract amount of this case has expired.

The facts that the maturity date of the instant contract was January 15, 2004 are as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the instant contract was filed on November 27, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from that date. Thus, it is deemed that the instant contract had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

The defendant's defense is justified.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff’s type C created a collateral security to secure the instant agreed amount to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to C and consulted several times, and filed an application for change of address of the mortgagee around February 27, 2015, which led to the suspension of extinctive prescription.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the Defendant’s type C completed the registration of creation of a new mortgage on one-half portion of the 1/2 shares out of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do on December 8, 2003, and the Plaintiff notified C of the notice of application for real estate auction on or around January 9, 2009, and the Plaintiff filed an application for change of address on or around February 27, 2015. However, even though the above fact of recognition alone does not necessarily mean that the extinctive prescription of the instant contract amount is interrupted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription.

The plaintiff's second defense is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.