1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim and the whole purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on September 12, 2008, by setting the due date for repayment on September 30, 2008.

Therefore, barring any other circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 10,000,000 won with 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from October 1, 2008, which is the day following the due date for repayment, to October 26, 2018, and 15% per annum as stipulated under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant set up a defense that he paid 3 million won after lending the above money from the plaintiff, and that he paid 3 million won in cash thereafter.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid the loan, and this part of the defense by the defendant is not acceptable.

B. On September 12, 2008, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for loans was extinguished by the statute of limitations, since the Plaintiff constituted a merchant since it was established C and was conducting a new construction work by establishing C, and that the Plaintiff’s monetary lending is presumed to be for business purposes. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans is governed by the five-year commercial statute of limitations, and that the instant lawsuit was filed more than five years after the due date.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was a merchant on September 12, 2008, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence evidence No. 9, the plaintiff was not a director or a representative director of the corporation C in September 12, 2008.