대여금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff extended a loan to the defendant corporation B (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") by setting the amount of KRW 100 million around October 17, 2007, KRW 50 million around March 11, 2008, KRW 150 million around October 17, 2008, and KRW 120 million at each due date of payment, around October 17, 2008, at interest rate of KRW 12%, and KRW 12% (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and the defendant C guaranteed the above debt of the defendant company.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 20 million from the Defendants on April 2010, May 3, 2010, KRW 50 million on May 3, 2010, KRW 50 million on June 30, 2010, and KRW 120 million on a total.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 30 million (i.e., KRW 150 million - KRW 120 million) and interest and delay damages.
2. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.
A. First of all, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to settle all of the instant loan claims at KRW 100 million on May 3, 2010, and accordingly, the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million on May 3, 2010, which is the date agreed upon, and the Defendant Company paid KRW 50 million on June 30, 2010, respectively, to the effect that all of the Defendants’ obligations were extinguished.
However, the evidence, including the witness D and E, submitted by the Defendants alone, is insufficient to acknowledge that such settlement agreement was reached, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the defendants' defense is without merit.
B. Even if there is no agreement on the settlement of accounts, the Defendants’ expiration of the extinctive prescription applies to the instant loan claims with a commercial claim of five years. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Defendant Company around July 8, 2016, which was five years from June 30, 2010 when the Defendant Company repaid to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the instant loan claims were extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, and based on the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.