대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant on July 22, 1996 without fixing the due date does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
2. The Defendant’s defense that the above loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations is examined, and the fact that the repayment period for the above loan claim has not been determined is as seen earlier. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is apparent in the record that the lawsuit was filed on September 3, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from July 22, 1996, the lending date, and thus, the above loan claim had already expired by the statute of limitations before the instant lawsuit was filed.
As such, the defendant's above defense is justified.
On March 14, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant would repay 1,00,000 won per month to the Plaintiff and approved the above loan obligations. Thus, the above extinctive prescription has been interrupted. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim is not sufficient to acknowledge it solely with the statement of evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.