1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and delay damages, such as the statement in the claim, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the five-year extinctive prescription has expired with respect to the instant loan claim”

In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence No. 2, since the lawsuit of this case was filed at the lapse of five years from August 24, 2008, which was the expiration date of the credit claim of this case, as a whole, the defendant's above assertion is with merit.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff’s partial repayment on September 8, 201 or the approval of the obligation due to the management repayment on September 14, 2011 was made, and thus, the extinctive prescription was interrupted.

'' asserts to the effect that ‘' is.

The bank account was partially repaid solely on the ground that the details of transactions exist in the bank account.

It is difficult to readily conclude that approval, which is a cause for interrupting prescription, was given, and where a bank actually manages and operates an account under the name of a private person, as in this case, it is more so.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the "management repayment" was stated as of September 14, 201, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the management repayment constitutes the defendant's approval as the ground for interruption of prescription.

In addition, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 8 and 9, even if it can be acknowledged that there was a transaction statement in the Defendant’s name on September 8, 201, it is difficult to view that the transaction account number is a partial repayment of the loan claim of this case, as long as the transaction account number appears to be different from the account number of the loan claim of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. We examine the above.