The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

A. Before five years have elapsed, the instant lawsuit was filed

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not approve the entire amount of the above loan obligation. However, approval is a unilateral act that recognizes the existence of the other party’s right, etc. benefiting prescription, and does not require confirmation of specific matters as to the cause, content, scope, etc. of the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du39897, Apr. 25, 2019). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired due to the cause of suspension of the said right, is without merit. (2) The Defendant asserted that a set-off-off-related claim against the Plaintiff is set-off with the above loan claim amounting to KRW 11,178,00,000 against the Plaintiff. Although the Plaintiff’s claim for the above goods payment itself is recognized, it is insufficient to offset the Plaintiff’s claim against the interest claim amounting to KRW 180,700,000,000 per annum 17,000 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above argument is reasonable, and the defendant's counterclaim is therefore groundless.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted for reasons.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.