대여금 등
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant, on June 13, 1995, borrowed KRW 20,00,000 from the plaintiff as interest rate of KRW 13.5% per annum and on May 2, 1997. The loan principal not repaid as of June 28, 2001 can be recognized as the fact that the interest rate of KRW 14,098,608, interest rate of KRW 9,346,790, interest rate of KRW 4,35,50, interest rate of arrears interest rate of KRW 14,09,60, interest rate of KRW 608, interest rate of KRW 14,09, interest rate of KRW 608, interest rate of the above loan, and delay damages interest rate of KRW 14,00.
As to this, the defendant has a defense to the effect that the above loan claim has expired by the prescription, the period of extinctive prescription shall be five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, as a claim for a loan as a commercial activity by the bank and a claim for its delayed payment damages. Since it is apparent that the above loan claim was due on May 2, 1997, and since the lawsuit in this case was filed on March 12, 2015, which was five years after the above due date, it shall be deemed that the above loan claim and its late payment damages claim have already expired by the prescription before the lawsuit in this case was filed.
Therefore, for the defendant's defense, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is without merit.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.