대여금
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in subparagraph 1-3 of Article 1-2, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1517 million and delayed damages (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) for the amount of KRW 1.4 million on December 1, 2008, KRW 2.6 million on January 5, 2009, KRW 5 million on February 6, 2009, KRW 1.4 million on February 15, 2009, KRW 1.5 million on March 15, 2009. The Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, lent KRW 670,00 to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant, barring any special circumstances, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1.517 million and delayed damages (hereinafter “the loan of this case”).
2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment: (a) the Defendant extinguished all of the instant loan claims by prescription.
Therefore, the facts that the repayment period of the loan claim of this case was March 15, 2009 are the same as mentioned above. As such, it is apparent in the record that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on June 24, 2019 after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case, the above loan claim of this case had already expired before the lawsuit of this case was filed, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the defendant's argument is with merit.
Around March 15, 2009, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 670,00 to the Defendant. At the time, the Defendant decided on March 15, 2010 as the maturity of the above KRW 6,770,000 to the Plaintiff, and requested the extension of the maturity of the above KRW 1,450,000 to the Plaintiff for one year. The Plaintiff consented thereto and received interest KRW 1,300,000,000,00 based on the interest rate of KRW 9% per annum for the above KRW 1,450,00,000, and eventually, the maturity of the instant loan claim was March 15, 201 and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant, who failed to observe the repayment deadline around September 201, to pay the amount after two years.
Since its maturity date was September 2013, the suit in this case was filed within 10 years thereafter, and the statute of limitations has ceased to exist.
The argument is asserted.
According to the statement No. 1-1, the defendant's cash custody certificate No. 2.