1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 1997, the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant, which ordered “17,500,000 won and 25% interest per annum from July 1, 1996 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the extension of prescription against Suwon District Court 2007Kadan93765, and on May 15, 2008, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a favorable judgment ordering “17.5 million won, and 25% interest per annum from July 1, 1996 to February 1, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(C) Claim based on each of the above judgments (hereinafter “instant claim”).

The Plaintiff filed a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the court 2018 Ghana32616 against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription, following the lapse of the extinctive prescription of the loan claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 17,50,000 won with 25% per annum from July 1, 1996 to February 1, 2008, 20% per annum from the next day to June 4, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(B) The instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment in a prior suit is beneficial to the lawsuit).

On the part of the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that ① 50% of the amount borrowed from the plaintiff includes interest, ② by coercion of the defendant, the loan certificate was prepared and awarded, ③ the principal of five million won out of the bonds in this case has already been repaid.

However, it supports the above facts alleged by the defendant.