1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The purport of the request is stated above.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2007, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the face value of KRW 300 million and the due date of October 1, 2007, and on July 2, 2007, a notary public drafted a notarial deed with the executory power of KRW C200,000.

B. On July 2, 2007, the Defendant drafted a letter of undertaking with the following content.

In borrowing KRW 300 million from the plaintiff, the defendant provided the first floor E commercial building in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City which was sold in lots under the name of the defendant, as collateral, and if the plaintiff is unable to repay by the due date, he does not raise an objection even if he forced to repay the borrowed money from the proceeds of a voluntary disposition.

Provided, That the payment date may be extended by three months according to circumstances.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 40 million and delay damages therefor (hereinafter “instant claim”), as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserts that the claim of this case had already been extinguished by the completion of extinctive prescription.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be recognized that the maturity date of the instant claim is October 1, 2007. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on April 5, 2019, the statute of limitations has expired after the lapse of 10 years from October 1, 2007.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations was interrupted since F, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant and actually received the instant claim, prepared a written confirmation that he is a true debtor on or around December 2010. However, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim cannot be interrupted on the ground that F prepared a written confirmation as above. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is further examined.