The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who has engaged in credit business with the trade name of C, and the defendant became aware of the plaintiff who is a credit service provider through the living information log.

B. The Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 118,000,000 from the Plaintiff on the following terms:

① On September 10, 2009, 4% of interest, 39,000, 39,000, 4% of the due date, 25,000,000, 4% of the interest, 4% of the due date, 4% of the interest, 4% of the due date, 26 September 26, 2009, 200, 4% of the interest, 4% of the due date, and 3% of the interest, 4% of the interest, 4% of the due date, 26 December 26, 2009, 4, 209, 34,00,000, interest, 4% of the due date, and 4% of the interest, and December 29, 2009 / [founded grounds] of September 18, 2009, 1, 202, and the purport of each of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff loaned KRW 118,00,000 to the defendant, but did not receive the principal and interest, and claimed for the payment of KRW 118,00,000 as well as damages for delay. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim has expired the commercial statute of limitations.

B. Claims arising from acts that constitute a commercial activity, as well as claims arising from acts that constitute a commercial activity for both parties to the judgment party also constitute commercial claims to which the extinctive prescription period of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da54842 delivered on April 29, 1994, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, inasmuch as loans to the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff were claims incurred while running a credit business, it constitutes commercial claims to which the period of extinctive prescription of five years applies.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case only after October 15, 2019, which is obvious that the last due date of the loan claim was December 29, 2009, and the five years have elapsed since it was evident that the plaintiff had passed since the lawsuit was filed, and there was no other ground for interruption of the statute of limitations within five years retroactively from the date of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was completed by extinctive prescription against the defendant, and thus the plaintiff's claim is added.