대여금
1. The defendant's KRW 50,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from April 2, 2004 to February 20, 2008 to the plaintiff.
In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Southern District Court 2008Kadan9451, and the above court rendered the judgment of May 21, 2008 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and interest rate of 55% per annum from April 2, 2004 to February 20, 2008, and 20% per annum from February 21, 2008 to the day of full payment," and the above judgment is recognized as having become final and conclusive on June 12, 2008, and it is evident that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on May 8, 2018 to extend the prescription of the claims finalized by the judgment.
According to the above facts, the lawsuit in this case is recognized as a re-litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won with 5% per annum from April 2, 2004 to February 20, 2008, 20% per annum from the next day to May 8, 2018 sought by the plaintiff, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the loan of this case was the former husband of the defendant and D, the wife of the plaintiff, and that the defendant was not the money borrowed by the defendant. However, the defendant's assertion is not permissible as it goes against the res judicata of the above final judgment.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.