1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 190,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 19, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant and C shall borrow 280,000,000 won from the plaintiff on November 12, 2000 from the plaintiff on November 12, 2000.

The cash custody certificate was prepared and issued with the content of "the cash custody certificate".

B. On June 11, 2009, after the Defendant issued a cash custody certificate, KRW 700,000 was remitted to the Plaintiff from the account under the Defendant’s name. The Defendant also remitted KRW 1,80,000 on September 11, 2009, and KRW 10,000 on April 21, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2 and 7 evidence

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, not only between the plaintiff and the defendant but also between the plaintiff and the defendant, the loan contract or loan contract with respect to KRW 280,000 was concluded. Thus, the defendant, as the borrower, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 190,000,000 which has not been paid as requested by the plaintiff and the delay damages.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Even if the Defendant’s assertion is liable for the instant loan debt, the statute of limitations expired from November 12, 200, when the Plaintiff was able to file a claim, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit (as of July 12, 2018), prior to the lapse of the statute of limitations.

B. The period of extinctive prescription is calculated from the time when a right can be exercised. Unless there exist any special circumstances, the period of reimbursement (where a repayment period is not determined, the date of lending money) is calculated from the time when a right can be exercised. It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2018 after the lapse of ten years from November 12, 200, the date when the Plaintiff loaned the instant loan.

The Plaintiff re-appealed that the statute of limitations was interrupted because the Defendant approved part of the instant loan prior to the completion of the statute of limitations. As recognized earlier, it is true that KRW 700,000 was remitted from the account in the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff on April 21, 2010, including the remittance of KRW 10,000,000 from June 11, 2009.