beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 9 as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant may recognize the fact that (a) on May 29, 2003, the repayment date was set at 11% per annum of general funds for household subjects, general funds for household loans, interest rate fluctuation rate of 11% per annum, and interest rate of 22% per annum of delay damages (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”); (b) as of October 22, 2016, the principal and interest on the obligation under the loan agreement of this case remains at KRW 38,090,162, interest rate of KRW 66,270,015, total of KRW 104,360,177 as of October 22, 2016.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the Disposition No. 1 as requested by the plaintiff.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations for the instant loan claim has expired, and thus, it cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s claim.
The defense of extinctive prescription extinguishing a right is subject to the judgment of the court only if the party's assertion exists in accordance with the principle of pleading. However, since the argument on the application of the statute is merely an opinion on the interpretation or application of the law, the principle of pleading does not apply to this, the court may decide ex officio without being bound by
In other words, even if the parties have claimed the period of extinctive prescription under the civil law, the court may apply ex officio the period of extinctive prescription under the
(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da258124 Decided March 22, 2017). Meanwhile, it is difficult to view that a community credit cooperative constitutes a nonprofit corporation and lending of funds to its members is an act for profit-making purposes generally. However, a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity only for one of the parties as well as a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity with both parties, constitutes a commercial claim to which the extinctive prescription period of Article 64-5 of the Commercial Act applies.
Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on July 1, 1998