대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on May 7, 1990 as the lending period of two months, and there is no counter-proof. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund the above borrowed amount of KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On December 9, 1990, the defendant argued that he repaid KRW 10,00,000 out of the above borrowed money, but the statement in the Eul evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of repayment as alleged in the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
B. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the above loan claim has expired by the extinctive prescription, and the fact that the payment period of the above loan claim was around July 7, 1990, which was 2 months after May 7, 1990, was as seen above. It is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order with the content of seeking the payment of the above loan claim before April 6, 2015, which was 10 years after the lapse of 10 years from the Plaintiff. Thus, the above loan claim had expired by the extinctive prescription before the application for the instant payment order.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.
3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.