1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition that the Plaintiff, on June 21, 199, lent to the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 50 million won by designating and lending to the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 5%, and that a promissory note was drawn up from the Defendant with a face value of 50 million won, shall not be disputed between the parties, or shall be recognized by the statements in Gap A1 through 4.

2. As to the claim of the parties that the plaintiff sought the payment of the loan to the defendant, the defendant satisfied all the borrowed businesses, and is not so.

Even if the plaintiff's claim has already been extinguished by prescription.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant was missing from around 2009, the prescription does not run during the period when the defendant was missing.

3. The defendant's assertion that the statute of limitations has expired prior to the letter of claim for the repayment of the judgment was examined, and the fact that ten years have passed since the loan was made without the time limit for payment of the above loan is apparent.

In addition, there was a period during which the defendant was missing.

Inasmuch as such fact does not constitute grounds for interruption or suspension of prescription, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's claim extinguished by prescription is with merit, and the plaintiff's assertion is therefore groundless.

4. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is not reasonable and so decided as per Disposition.