The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of claim and the purport of the whole theory on the change, the plaintiff shall set the period of repayment of KRW 10 million on March 28, 2010 to the defendant as July 28, 2010, and set the payment period of KRW 10 million on June 28, 2010 to September 28, 2010, and the interest rate of KRW 20 million on December 28, 2010 to be set as the payment period of KRW 5% on February 28, 201 and lent each contract interest rate of KRW 40 million to the plaintiff on February 28, 201, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan amount of KRW 40 million to the plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at a rate of 30% per annum or interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from the day following each change to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s defense of extinction of prescription period expired due to the lapse of prescription period for the loans in this case.

As a defense, first of all other defenses, the plaintiff registered the loan business on February 19, 203, and revoked the loan business registration on October 22, 2010, and the loan business registration on August 22, 201, without registering the loan business from around 2009 to August 10, 2013, and the loan business was imposed for more than the interest rate of 5 years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da9260, Aug. 26, 1997), and the purport of the whole arguments on the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number).

In light of these facts, the Plaintiff can be recognized as having been a merchant who had been engaged in the registered loan business or the unregistered loan business at the time of the instant lending. Therefore, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant.