1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 4 as to the cause of the claim and all the arguments, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent the loan to the defendant Eul who operated the corporation Eul on July 10, 1998, KRW 10,000,000 on July 11, 1998, KRW 10,000 on July 18, 1998, KRW 10,000 on August 31, 1998, KRW 13,000,000 on August 31, 1998, and KRW 3,000,000 on September 7, 1998, and KRW 51,000,000 on September 7, 1998 (in full view of the plaintiff's "loan," and from the defendants' point of view, it is evident that the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendants without setting the maturity of the loan.

According to this, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 51,00,000 and its delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, guaranteed the debt of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

2. As to the judgment on Defendant B’s defense, Defendant B’s defense that the extinctive prescription of the loan of this case has expired.

The extinctive prescription is to run from the time of establishment of a debt with no fixed maturity. The debt of the instant loan was established from July 10, 1998 to September 7, 1998, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 29, 2015, which was ten years thereafter, is apparent in the record, and thus, the statute of limitations has expired.

The defendant's defense is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is also groundless.

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