대여금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 35,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from February 1, 2009 to June 24, 2015; and (b) June 25, 2015.
1. In full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 and Eul's testimony, the defendant borrowed 35,000,000 won from C on July 31, 2008, and the defendant requested C to lend money to the plaintiff who is urged to repay the above borrowed money. The plaintiff decided as of January 31, 2009 and lent 30,000,000 won to the defendant on January 5, 2009, and 5,000,000 won on January 8, 209, and 205,000 won to the bank account of D as designated by C on January 5, 2009, and 30,000,000 won from 20,000 won to 30,000,000,000 won per annum 5,000,000 won per annum 25,000,000 won per annum 25,000,0000 won per annum.
(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant agreed on the interest rate of 2% per month with the Defendant and claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from February 1, 2009 to the date of full payment. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the statute of limitations defense on February 2, 2006 is insufficient to recognize the same only, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s above loan obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished due to the completion of the statute of limitations.
According to the statement of No. 6-1 through No. 3, the fact that the defendant is a merchant who acts as a real estate broker for the business of the defendant, and according to Article 3 of the Commercial Code, one of the parties is the act.