대여금
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reason why the court should explain this part of the leased principal is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part from No. 4 to No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, there is no evidence to prove that the period of repayment has not been determined separately at the time of the loan in this case, and that there was no other provision on the period of repayment. Accordingly, the loan in this case is a claim with no fixed period of payment, and a claim with no fixed period of payment has run immediately after the establishment of such claim. It is evident that the plaintiff's application for the payment order in this case was filed on April 15, 2014, which was 5 years after the establishment of the loan in this case's claim. However, it is evident that the plaintiff's application for the payment order in this case was filed on November 7, 2008, when the loan in this case was made. On the other hand, Gap evidence No. 2, 7, and 10 (including
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry, the Defendant was delegated the right to receive the rent by the Defendant, as it was calculated at the rate of KRW 1,250,000 per month from March 1, 2009, which was not paid until then (as against the store of KRW 1,250,000 in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul).
(2) In lieu of receiving the instant loan, the agreement on July 8, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “agreement of July 8, 2009”) to settle the interest calculated at the rate of KRW 1,50,000 per month on the instant loan less the amount equivalent to the said rent, at the time of repayment of the principal (hereinafter referred to as
By doing so, the fact that the loan debt of this case can be approved can be recognized, so the above statute of limitations is suspended.
Therefore, the plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is justified, and the defendant's second defense is not justified.
2. Interest portion
A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is the defendant and the case.