대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 8, 2018 to May 31, 2019.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may be found to have lent KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on September 30, 2008, ② October 10, 2008, ③ October 17, 2008, ④ 12,000,000, ④ November 20, 2008, ⑤ 8,000,000 on December 3, 208 without specifying the period of each payment, interest and delay damages, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 50,000,000 and delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s claim against the Defendant constitutes Article 163 of the Civil Act, and the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years is applied. As such, the above claim was extinguished by the completion of extinctive prescription.
B. 1) The argument about how the extinctive prescription period of a certain right becomes effective is merely a mere legal assertion, and thus, the court may determine ex officio the ex officio rather than the subject of the principle of pleading (Supreme Court Decisions 77Da832 Decided September 13, 197; 2006Da70929, 70936 Decided March 27, 2008). However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant constituted a claim under Article 163 of the Civil Act. Thus, the above claim cannot be deemed to have expired due to the completion of the short-term extinctive prescription of three years.
However, the defendant's claim for completion of short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 of the Civil Code is deemed to include the ten-year extinctive prescription period for the long time.
If so, among the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, KRW 10,00,000 lent on September 30, 2008 to the Plaintiff without fixing the due date, the statute of limitations of the above claim expired on September 30, 2018 after ten years from September 30, 2008 when the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant. It is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 8, 2018, since the statute of limitations expired.