청구이의
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 30, 1994, the Defendant lent KRW 5,600,00 to the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”) with a maturity of KRW 25% per annum on January 30, 1995 and interest rate of KRW 25% (hereinafter “the instant loan claim”). On December 29, 1994, the Defendant was drafted the instant Notarial Deed on the instant loan claim by the Deceased.
B. The Plaintiffs are the spouses and children of the deceased who died on April 6, 2011.
C. On September 10, 2013, the Defendant issued an execution clause for succession to the instant notarial deed, and applied for a seizure of movable property owned by the Plaintiffs as Busan District Court Branch Branch 2013No3260, Sept. 10, 2013. The execution officer affiliated with the said court completed the seizure execution of the said movable property (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including, if any, a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant applied for the compulsory execution of this case only after ten years have passed since January 30, 1995, the maturity date of the loan claim of this case, which was later than September 10, 2013, and barring special circumstances, the loan of this case has expired in accordance with Article 162(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiffs should be rejected.
B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was suspended the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim since the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,000 in cash as interest to the Defendant on August 20, 2013. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,00 to the Defendant on August 20, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified.