양수금
1. Defendant A’s interest rate of KRW 112,021,541 and KRW 25,111,073 among the Plaintiff shall be from April 2, 2016 to the date of full payment.
1. In full view of the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and damages for delay, as stated in the separate sheet (However, “creditor” is deemed to be “Plaintiff” and “debtor” shall be deemed to be “Defendant”).
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. Although Defendant A asserts to the effect that “only lent his name to his spouse,” there is no evidence to acknowledge it, it is without merit to further determine the remainder.
B. Defendant B alleged to the effect that the above document was forged while disputing the authenticity of No. 4-6 of the evidence No. 4-6, but in full view of the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above document's authenticity is recognized. Thus, the above Defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. The Defendants asserted to the effect that “the Defendants were not notified of the transfer of claims,” but, as long as the Defendants knew of the transfer of claims in the course of the instant lawsuit, the notice of the transfer of claims was given. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
The Defendants asserts to the effect that “the extinctive prescription for each of the instant claims has expired”.
1 In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the reasons for the claim
2. Of the “the occurrence of the claim,” the payment order was finalized for each claim listed in the table 1 and 4, and it can be known that the lawsuit in this case was filed before the lapse of 10 years thereafter (in the case of the claim for which the payment order was finalized, the extinctive prescription period of 10 years). Thus, this part of the defendant A’
2) Since the instant lawsuit was filed more than five years after the claim listed in the above table 2 and 3 was able to be exercised, the extinctive prescription was completed. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant A’s assertion is with merit. 3) The Defendant B is above.