대여금
1. As to KRW 477,964,718 and KRW 341,00,00 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall annually pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,964,718 from March 28, 2016 to May 11, 2016.
1. The plaintiff's judgment as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim is asserted as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the annexed sheet, and all of them can be acknowledged according to the purport of Gap's evidence and all of the arguments.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion (other than the part withdrawn on the date for the first pleading)
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the loan transaction agreement on the cause of the claim was for the purpose of paying part payments of the sale in lots (B apartment No. 302 901, 302) as indicated in the cause of the claim, and that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the executor company, the Si Corporation, and the Si Corporation (Dongdong Construction Co., Ltd.) on the assumption of the obligation under which the rescission of the sale contract was a condition precedent, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the obligation of the loan pursuant to Article 453(1) or 4
However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff et al. entered into an agreement to assume the obligation as above, rather than an agreement to assume the obligation overlapping, so this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that since a claim under a loan transaction agreement in which the cause of the claim is stated is a claim with no deadline, the claim for the portion of interest among them was already extinguished upon the completion of the five-year extinctive prescription period from the following day of May 2009, which is the date of the agreement.
However, according to the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as to subparagraph 2 of the above loan transaction agreement, since claims under the above loan transaction agreement can be recognized as having been determined as " July 15, 201 (Article 1 subparag. 5 and 10)" (Article 1 subparag. 5 and 10), insofar as the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on April 19, 2016, which was five years from the date when the loan period expires, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. C. The Defendant’s claim against “the total amount of KRW 2,54,041, the agreed interest rate for the loan transaction agreement from February 1, 2013 to April 1, 2013” among claims under the loan transaction agreement, is to be paid for a specified period of not more than one year, and thus, the short-term extinctive prescription for three years under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the