대여금
1. The defendant shall pay 30,800,000 won to the plaintiff and 30% per annum from October 31, 2008 to the day of complete payment.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant prepared a performance commitment to the plaintiff on August 25, 2008, stating that "the defendant borrowed KRW 308 million from the plaintiff, repaid it until October 30, 2008, and paid damages for delay if the above deadline is not met."
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum within the scope of the above agreement from October 31, 2008 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 30,80,000 based on the above performance guarantee agreement, as requested by the Plaintiff.
In this regard, the defendant defense that the claim under the above performance assurance has ceased to exist due to the completion of prescription.
Pursuant to Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act, a judicial claim necessary for the interruption of prescription takes effect when the lawsuit is brought.
In accordance with Articles 162(1) and 166(1) of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription of a claim under the performance assurance becomes effective from October 31, 2008, which is the day following the due date for payment pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act. In the event that the Plaintiff files a lawsuit in this case seeking payment of the said claim, it is evident in the record that it was October 30, 201, which was ten years after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the claim under the performance assurance was interrupted before the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.