1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant, however, denies the authenticity of the blank document with Gap evidence No. 1's seal imprint affixed to the defendant's seal imprint; the plaintiff's seal imprint attached to it without the plaintiff's authority; however, since Gap evidence No. 1 has the same in its nature as a notarial deed, its authenticity is presumed to be established, since it has the same in its nature as a notarial deed, and there is no evidence to reverse the above presumption), it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on Jan. 8, 2004 on April 5, 2004; interest rate of 42% per annum (payment on April 5; interest rate of 42% per annum; interest rate of 5% per annum; and interest rate of delay damages; and C's joint and several debt of the defendant.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum, which the plaintiff seeks within the scope of the agreement, from June 5, 2005 to the date of full payment, as a result of the due date for payment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and KRW 30 million to C. At the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to C in full, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to return KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff constitutes a corporate bonds company, and the said monetary loan agreement constitutes a commercial activity conducted by a merchant for business purposes. As such, the five-year commercial extinctive prescription is applicable, and the instant lawsuit was filed five years after the date when the loan was due, and the Defendant’s obligation to return the instant loan expired.

B. The court does not have any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the content of the statement, so long as it is recognized as the authenticity of the formation of the dispositive document as to one of the claims for reimbursement.