대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion of the parties: the plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 25 million to the defendant at 120% per annum after the date of the repayment due date of August 2003.
On July 17, 2013, the Defendant borrowed the said money and deposited the said money with the Defendant no later than 10 days after the date of borrowing, the Plaintiff became the Defendant, and the Defendant was issued and delivered the loan amounting to KRW 20 million on the same day, the interest amounting to KRW 0,000,000, and the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
Since then, the fact that the defendant paid KRW 20 million to the plaintiff is recognized, but the above KRW 20 million is limited to the partial repayment of KRW 25 million lent around August 2003, and the payment of KRW 00 is decided not to receive interest since July 17, 2013, and it is not exempt from interest since August 2003, 200, and the above loan certificate was prepared and kept in writing even for partial payment.
(A) The Plaintiff, from the Plaintiff’s standpoint, sought the procedure for approving the interruption of extinctive prescription under Article 167 of the Civil Act, and agreed on the waiver of extinctive prescription benefits under Article 184 of the Civil Act. The amount of the loan certificate of this case is KRW 20 million, but when applying the interest rate of KRW 30-50 per annum, the amount to be actually received is above KRW 100,000.
On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance of the payment of KRW 50 million prior to January 15, 2016, which would provide for the full payment of the amount and interest that have been loaned to the Defendant, in the amount of KRW 50 million. However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the evidence (Evidence 2). Therefore, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 100 million for the total amount of loan up to the date.
Defendant: The Defendant did not borrow KRW 25 million from the Plaintiff around August 2003.
The loan certificate of this case was KRW 1 million (including KRW 1 million, before 20 years ago) against the Plaintiff, but it was difficult to ascertain whether the principal obligation was extinguished or not, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to repay the loan certificate of this case in 20 months with the same amount as the loan certificate of this case.
2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff is the loan certificate of this case.