beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,400,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 24, 2016 to September 28, 2017.
Reasons
1. Claims for loans made on October 26, 2005;
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that on October 26, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant within one month and agreed to pay the interest at 3% per month. 2) On October 26, 2005, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 26, 2005, on October 26, 2005, in view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff on October 26, 2005.
B. 1) The defendant defenses that the above claim was extinguished after the expiration of the ten-year prescription. Since the facts raised on May 27, 2016, which was ten years from October 26, 2005, by the plaintiff's application for the payment order of this case, are apparent in the record, the plaintiff's above claim should have already been extinguished by the statute of limitations before it. Thus, the defendant's above defense is justified. 2) In this regard, the plaintiff again re-claimed that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since the defendant urged the repayment of the loan until it is detained in 2012.
However, according to Article 174 of the Civil Code, the peremptory notice does not have the effect of interrupting prescription if it does not take judicial action, such as a judicial claim, seizure or provisional seizure within six months, and thus, the plaintiff's re-appeal is
2. Claim for loans made on May 30, 2006
A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that on May 30, 2006, the plaintiff agreed to pay 7,400,000 won to the defendant within one month and agreed to pay interest at 3% per month.
B. According to the evidence No. 2, the defendant delivered to the plaintiff on May 30, 2006 the document stating "Tl million won" to the plaintiff on May 30, 2006, and the defendant did not explain the reason why the plaintiff delivered it to the plaintiff, and the purport of the whole pleadings is shown, such as the circumstance that the defendant did not explain the reason why the plaintiff delivered it to the plaintiff, it can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 7,400,00
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant extended loans to the plaintiff 7,400.