대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. On September 7, 2012, the fact that the Japanese Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “ Japanese Savings Bank”) was declared bankrupt on September 7, 2012 by the Seoul Central District Court 2012Hahap96, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee is not a dispute between the parties. The evidence Nos. 4-1 (the entire document shall be presumed to be authentic because there is no dispute over the Defendant’s writing and stamp image), Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 3, 5, 6, and 7-2, Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 3, 5, 6, and 7-2, and the overall purport of the argument of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Korean Bank of Korea for each of the parties. On April 12, 2005, the Japanese Savings Bank lent KRW 191,50,000 to the Defendant on March 28, 2003, the Japanese Savings Bank and the Defendant concluded an agreement to lend loans to the Plaintiff at an interest rate of KRW 10.05%
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. The defendant defense to the effect that the above loan was a false conspiracy, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. The defendant defenses that the above loans were fully repaid, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
C. The defendant's defense that the above loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations is examined, and the fact that the due date for the above loan claim was April 12, 2006 is the same as above. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case of this case of this case of this case is to purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2940 Decided March 14, 2008, where Article 64 of the Commercial Act, which provides for the extinctive prescription period for the original loan claim, as a business act of a savings bank in five years from the above lawsuit of this case, is applicable to the claim for hand-on as