대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
In full view of the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the loan claim against Cheongju District Court 2003Ka10704 case, and "the defendant shall pay 30 million won to the plaintiff until August 31, 2003, but he shall pay the plaintiff the amount not paid if he fails to perform it properly, plus damages for delay in accordance with the rate of 24% per annum from September 1, 2003 to the full payment date," and it can be acknowledged that the lawsuit of this case was finalized on August 26, 2003. However, the lawsuit of this case was filed more than 10 years after the date on which the decision to recommend a compromise became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, a claim based on the decision to recommend a settlement which became final and conclusive was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
Although the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the completion of the extinctive prescription has been suspended due to the decision to specify the property on around 2006, the decision to specify the property shall lose its effect unless the procedures prescribed in Article 174 of the Civil Act continue to exist, such as re-instigation of a lawsuit within six months from the date of the extension of the extinctive prescription pursuant to the decision to specify the property, or attachment, provisional attachment or provisional disposition, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da78606, Jan. 12, 2012). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit after receiving the said decision to specify the property, or filed a provisional attachment or provisional disposition.
Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.