대여금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim Gap, the plaintiff lent KRW 21,000,000 to the defendant on April 18, 2002 without setting the due date.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 11,000,000 to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant's defense against the judgment of this case is proved to the effect that the above loans were fully repaid, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's defense is without merit. ② Since the above loans are defenses that the extinctive prescription of the above loans has expired, the above loans will run from April 18, 202, which is the date of establishment, because there is no time limit for payment, and as seen earlier, the above loans will run from April 18, 2002. Since the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on October 22, 2014, which is obvious in the record, the above loans are deemed to have already expired prior to the institution of the lawsuit in this case, and the above defense by the defendant
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.