1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim Gap, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a document to the plaintiff that he would pay the plaintiff KRW 65,00,000 under the title of the loan certificate. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 65,00,000 and the damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the claim on the above loan certificate was extinguished due to the expiration of extinctive prescription with the merchant's price claim for goods.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the defendant, at the time, prepared a document to the effect that the plaintiff would pay 65,000,000 won for the goods unpaid until December 28, 2004 under the title of "C", and that the plaintiff would have operated each of the grain retail businesses with the trade name "D".

According to the above facts, a claim on the above loan certificate constitutes a commercial claim to which the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to a claim arising from a commercial activity between private parties with a claim on the purchase of goods.

However, it is clear in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 29, 2014 after five years from December 28, 2014, which was the due date for payment of claims under the above loan certificate. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim on the above loan certificate against the Defendant was extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the period of prescription applicable to the Plaintiff’s claim on the above loan certificate against the Defendant is 10 years, and that the statute of limitations has not yet expired since the Plaintiff’s claim on the loan certificate was changed not only to the amount of unpaid goods but also to the amount of 20,000,000 won by preparing the loan certificate.

According to the above, the defendant.