In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act, which is its content, must be recognized unless there are any special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document are clear and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff a loan of 34,500,000 won and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Since the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above loan has expired, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not set the due date for payment, and according to the statement in the evidence No. 3, the Defendant deposited some of the money after the completion of the above loan certificate (the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant deposited the interest by using the account in the name of the Defendant C or D, the wife, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the money deposited in the name of C or D was the interest of the loan of this case). Ultimately, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of ten years from January 18, 1999, which approved the Defendant’s debt based on the above loan certificate.

Therefore, the above loan claim became extinct upon the completion of the statute of limitations, barring any special circumstance.

I would like to say.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, the Defendant renounced the benefits of prescription by either approving the obligation before the completion of the statute of limitations

The debtor has an obligation against the creditor, such as the reason for interruption of extinctive prescription, or the reason for waiver of prescription benefit.