대여금
Of the lawsuits in this case, the part concerning the demand procedure cost claim shall be dismissed.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 200,000,000.
1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;
2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. The plaintiff asserts that part of dismissal is subject to a judgment in order to extend the prescription period of KRW 109,660 for the demand procedure of the payment order application case No. 2009Da3821, 2009.
However, it is reasonable to view that there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit separately because the amount paid as the litigation cost can be repaid through the procedure for the confirmation of the litigation cost (Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577 delivered on May 12, 200), and that the interruption of prescription for the claim for reimbursement of the established litigation cost should also be subject to the procedure for the determination of the amount of litigation cost.
Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the demand procedure cost claim is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.