대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,210,958 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 20% per annum from November 26, 2008 to September 30, 2015.
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the defendant on August 29, 2003, and applied for a payment order against the defendant under the court 2005 tea21162. The court of this case on October 31, 2005, "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 30 million won with interest of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order of this case until the day of full payment (hereinafter "the payment order of this case"). The payment order of this case was finalized on December 6, 2005, and the plaintiff received the payment order of this case from the court of this case on May 17, 2007 to the day of full payment, and the plaintiff may recognize the payment order of the defendant 20,000 won under the payment order of this case as the defendant's bonds and the payment order of this case from 206 to 305.2516.5.6
According to the facts found above, in this case where the plaintiff seeks the extension of the prescription period of a claim under the payment order of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total of 38,881,514 won [30,000 won interest of 8,843,834 won (20% per annum from November 21, 2005 to May 12, 2007) less 16,670,556 won and the remaining 22,210,958 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, as provided by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. < Amended by Act No. 8850, Nov. 26, 2008; Act No. 13506, Sep. 30, 2015>
2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that "the plaintiff's claim against the defendant other than the amount repaid by the plaintiff according to the collection order and seizure of the defendant's claim against the defendant is waived or exempted, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable."
However, the defendant's assertion is admitted.