1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the plaintiff lent the purchase price of 60 million won to the defendant on October 10, 200 on the ground of the claim that the plaintiff lent 60 million won to the defendant on October 10, 200 is not a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of 60 million won to the plaintiff and the delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the defendant asserts that he paid the plaintiff the full amount of KRW 60 million, the defendant's assertion that he paid the full amount is without merit, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

B. The Defendant’s defense of the extinctive prescription is proved to have expired by the statute of limitations. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan is a claim arising from commercial activity and the five-year extinctive prescription is applicable. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed is apparent that five years have elapsed since the extinctive prescription period for commercial activity was expired.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant continued to recognize that he had the above loan obligation, the plaintiff should be deemed to have declared his intent to approve the debt, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's counterclaim is without merit, and the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.