1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and the argument as to the cause of the claim, the defendant extended 6,00,000 won from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") on Nov. 202 at an annual interest rate of 15.5% and the due date of repayment on Nov. 20, 203. On Aug. 18, 2003, the above due date of repayment was changed to Nov. 20, 2005; the defendant transferred 2,540,767 won to the plaintiff on Aug. 18, 2003 at an annual interest rate of 24.5%; the due date of repayment of 1 to 30,000 won; the defendant transferred 2,540,767 won to the plaintiff on Aug. 25, 2005; the defendant transferred 208 won interest rate of 30,7408 won and interest rate of 1 to 30.48 won (hereinafter referred to the above 206.45.7.5%).7

2. Each of the above loans to determine whether to grant extinctive prescription defense constitutes a claim arising out of a commercial activity, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription is applied in accordance with Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

However, on December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order against the Defendant with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2010 tea31357, but was not served on the Defendant. Upon the Plaintiff’s application for the lawsuit, the facts that the instant lawsuit was filed on February 16, 201 are significant in this court. The facts that each of the above loans claim was due on November 20 and August 25, 2005 are due and due on August 25, 2005 are as shown in the foregoing paragraph (1). Accordingly, each of the above loans claim had already expired prior to the application for the instant payment order.

Therefore, each of the above loans claim still exists.