대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. On October 31, 2006, the loan certificate No. 1 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2006 to the effect that “6,731,500 won is duly borrowed” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
(1) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff had forged the instant loan certificate was insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff forged the instant loan certificate, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the written appraisal by an appraiser C, the Defendant appears to have signed the instant loan certificate. As such, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
No. 1 is disputed between the parties or recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement of Gap evidence.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 6,415,200 won among the 6,731,500 won borrowed and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 15, 2013 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that all of the borrowed money borrowed from the Plaintiff, and even if the household loan exists, the five-year extinctive prescription has expired with respect to a claim arising out of commercial activities.
B. We examine the judgment, and the defendant repaid the loan to the plaintiff.
Inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is a claim arising out of a commercial activity, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.