대여금
1. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C and Defendant D shall be dismissed, respectively.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.
3.
1. As to the request for return of the loan to Defendant B
A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,00,000 to Defendant B with the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum on September 30, 1993, and KRW 20,00,000 per annum on November 17, 1994, with the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, respectively, may be acknowledged according to the evidence No. 1-2, 2-2, and the entire purport of the pleading.
According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to return the borrowed amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff and pay damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances to the Plaintiff.
B. As to Defendant B’s defense, around July 5, 2001, Defendant B asserted that the above obligation was extinguished due to payment in kind by completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to 1/3 shares of Gosung-gun E, Gosung-gun, F forest, and G forest, and Plaintiff H on each of 1/3 shares of the above obligation due to payment in kind. In addition, Defendant B asserted that the above obligation was extinguished due to payment in kind since 10 years have passed since the date of the above loan claim which was lent without due date, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for payment in kind, and the extinctive prescription has expired since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for payment in kind. 2) According to the written evidence No. 3 and the whole purport of the pleading, Defendant B could not be acknowledged that Defendant B completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to 1/3 shares of each of the above 1/2 shares of Gosung-gun, J forest, F forest and forest around July 5, 2001. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above agreement on the payment in kind was insufficient to acknowledge otherwise.
3. Next, the Plaintiff lent 30,000,000 won to Defendant B on September 30, 1993, and 20,000,000 won on November 17, 1994 without fixing the due date for reimbursement, as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff demanded the return of the said loan on May 28, 2018, when 10 years have elapsed since the due date for payment.