대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 29, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff leased KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant on June 30, 2011, with the maturity of payment on May 31, 2011. The Plaintiff’s issuance date issued by the Defendant on May 31, 201; the time limit for payment of the Plaintiff, the issuer’s place of payment; the time limit for payment of the place of payment; and the time limit for payment; the promissory notes and promissory notes issued by the Defendant on June 30, 2011, issued by a notary public to the effect that a notary public recognizes compulsory execution on the part of the country’s law firm’s certificate as 587.
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above loans of KRW 300,000,000 and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 29, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit from June 30, 201, which was the date of payment of the said Promissory Notes, three years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and accordingly, asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the Promissory Notes was extinguished. However, the Plaintiff did not claim the payment of the Promissory Notes in the instant case, but claimed the return of the loan. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim on a different premise is without merit.
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.