대여금등
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. The facts that the plaintiff and the defendant remitted the plaintiff's basic facts to the defendant's account under the defendant's name on July 24, 2003, and the total of KRW 9 million on December 29, 2003, to the defendant's account may not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the statements in subparagraph 1-1 and subparagraph 2-2.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent the above KRW 9 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant promised to repay the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff on or around January 1, 2013, which was 208 and 2010, when the Plaintiff was confined to the prison, and was released from the prison. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9 million and the damages for delay after January 1, 2013. (2) The Defendant did not borrow the said KRW 9 million from the Plaintiff.
Even if the amount of KRW 9 million remitted from the plaintiff was borrowed, the debt was already extinguished by prescription.
B. Determination 1) The facts that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 9 million to the Defendant’s account in 2003 are acknowledged as above. However, each of the above recognized facts and evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 3 are insufficient to recognize that the said money was lent to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 2) Even if the Plaintiff loaned KRW 9 million to the Defendant, the fact that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant can be acknowledged.
Even if the above loan obligations are not fixed by deadline, the extinctive prescription shall run from the date of loan.
It is obvious in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 6, 2014, which was ten or more years since the date of lease, and thus, the statute of limitations expired.
I would like to say.
The plaintiff's assertion that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted since the defendant promised to repay KRW 9 million to the plaintiff several times and approved the debt, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted.
In addition, the plaintiff should dismiss the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription as "the method of attack and defense against practical time".