대여금
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 106,961,027 and KRW 80,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall start from October 30, 2009 to July 29, 2019.
1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff was ordered to pay to the Defendant in Busan District Court 2008Da3062, Busan District Court 2062, that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 80 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from January 1, 2007 to the date of full payment,” and the payment order was finalized on May 22, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “loan Claim”).
(2) On September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order on September 29, 2009 with the loan claim of this case as the loan claim of this case to the Busan District Court and collected KRW 27,325,000 on October 29, 2009.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, the fact that the plaintiff is the applicant, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. In light of the facts acknowledged above, since the ten-year extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim may be recognized as necessary to be interrupted, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at a rate of 24% per annum from October 30, 2009 to July 29, 2019, which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, for the amount of KRW 106,961,027, and KRW 80,000,00, which is the amount of outstanding repayment until October 30, 2009, among the instant loan claims, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the amount of damages for delay calculated at a rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
2. The Defendant’s defense of the extinctive prescription and the Plaintiff’s re-appeal on the ground that the instant loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations. As seen earlier, the facts that the period for repayment of the instant loan claim was on May 22, 2008 are as follows. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is apparent in the record that it was filed on June 21, 2019, which was ten years after the lapse of the said period. However, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan claim on September 29, 2009, which was prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.