대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,240,492,815 and its weight to the Plaintiff:
A. From December 12, 2007 to March 18, 2008, 453,978,733 won
In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, since the fact of the same claim is recognized as being the same as that of the plaintiff (the "creditor" and the "debtor" shall be deemed to be the "defendant"), the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and delay damages, as shown in paragraph (1) of the Disposition
Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that “the ten-year extinctive prescription for each claim of this case has expired,” according to each of the above evidence, it can be known that there has been a final and conclusive judgment on each of the claims of this case, and that the lawsuit of this case has been filed before the lapse of ten years from the date the judgment became final and conclusive (ten-year extinctive prescription period in the case of claims established by a judgment).
In addition, the defendant argues that "the plaintiff violated the Interest Limitation Act," but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.