1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts that the plaintiff lent 5 million won to the defendant at interest rate of 20% on November 20, 2001, and that the defendant agreed to pay 500,000 won each month from February 20, 2002 after the date on which 3 months elapsed from the date on which the above loan certificate was prepared does not conflict between the parties, or that the plaintiff changed the date of preparation from November 20, 2001 to November 20, respectively, by the evidence No. 1 (the date on which the plaintiff changed the date on November 20, 2006).

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to five million won and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's assertion asserts that the above loan claim has expired by prescription.

However, as seen earlier, the period of repayment of the above loan claims is from February 20, 2002 to November 20, 2002. The instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was filed on May 11, 2015, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed. As such, the above loan claims were already extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since the Plaintiff filed a loan claim suit against the Defendant’s wife C and obtained a favorable judgment with the Daegu District Court Decision 2003 Ghana89466.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the above judgment was pronounced on September 25, 2003, and the facts that November 5, 2003 became final and conclusive are significant in this court.

Therefore, even if the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription has also become complete.

Therefore, without having to examine whether C is the principal obligor of the instant debt, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the Plaintiff received part of KRW 20,000 from the Defendant

It also argues that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted since the payment was made in kind, such as clothes, etc.

However, the date on which the plaintiff asserts that he was partially repaid is real estate on February 18, 2005.