beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding payment of KRW 80,600 shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Whether the part concerning the claim for the expenses of demand procedure is lawful, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 80,600 to the Defendant regarding the claim for the payment order of this case, but the amount disbursed as the expenses of lawsuit can be repaid after the judgment became final and conclusive, and there is no benefit to seek a separate lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 2000). This part of the lawsuit is unlawful.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In full view of the overall purport of each statement and argument of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repayment period to the defendant on Nov. 11, 1997 and the interest rate of 50 million won on Nov. 10, 1998 and the rate of 20 million won on Nov. 11, 1997. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed interest rate of 24% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, within the agreed interest rate from Nov. 12, 1998 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the judgment on the defendant's objection to the statute of limitations defense, since the defendant defense that the plaintiff's loan claims had already expired even when the ten-year statute of limitations expired, it is obvious in the record that the plaintiff's loan claims were due on November 10, 1998, and that the plaintiff's loan claims were filed on June 24, 2019 after the ten-year period has lapsed since the plaintiff's lawsuit was filed. However, according to the evidence No. 2 of the above, the fact that the defendant again prepared a loan certificate for the above loan claims to the plaintiff on July 12, 2009 after the expiration of the statute of limitations period, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant renounced the statute of limitations interest by the above declaration of intent of the parties inferred from the act indicated as above. Accordingly, the defendant's defense is not justified.
3. Conclusion.