1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 15, 2006, the plaintiff lent 30 million won to the defendant on March 15, 2006, and only up to 3 million won was paid.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining 27 million won to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant only received money of KRW 8,100,000,000 from the Plaintiff as a kind of “private learning box,” when the Plaintiff worked at the main shop operated by the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000 from the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan was recognized, this is a commercial bond, and the period of extinctive prescription has expired after the lapse of five years.

2. An act performed by a merchant as to whether the extinctive prescription expires is a commercial activity (Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act), and an act performed by a merchant is presumed to be for business purposes (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act). Therefore, even if a merchant who does not engage in lending money for business purposes, an act of lending money for business interests or convenience constitutes a commercial activity conducted for business purposes unless there is any counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008). Any claim arising from such a commercial activity is a commercial claim, and the period of extinctive prescription expires five years after the lapse of the period

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff operated the main point of "C" with her husband around March 2006, but on March 15, 2006, it is recognized that the defendant lent the above KRW 30 million to the defendant as a prepaid (tentatively referred to as "masting") on the condition that the defendant worked at the above main point.

Therefore, the lending of money constitutes a commercial activity for the Plaintiff’s main business, and the lending of money constitutes a commercial claim.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement on the repayment period for the above loan claims, the said loan claims ought to be deemed to have run from the time when the loan was established, that is, the period of extinctive prescription. It should be seen as from March 15, 2006 to January 20, 2015, which was five years after the said loan date.