beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The fact that the defendant borrowed KRW 99,00,000 from the plaintiff on March 12, 1998 is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above borrowed money (hereinafter "the borrowed money of this case") to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense and judgment 1) As to this, the defendant set up a defense that the debt of the loan of this case was repaid or that the extinctive prescription has expired. 2) The extinctive prescription does not proceed from the time when an objective right arises and the right can be exercised, while the right can not be exercised, and the "shall not exercise the right" refers to a case where there is a disability as prescribed by the law in relation to the exercise of the right, such as the non-existence of the period
3) Each letter stating that the debt of this case constitutes a debt without the due date, and the extinctive prescription from March 12, 1998, at the time of the occurrence thereof, shall be calculated. Meanwhile, around October 14, 2005, the defendant agrees to take over all of the defendant retirement allowances, each of which is the defendant's total amount of credit borrowed from the plaintiff, to the plaintiff as the amount of credit of KRW 350 million, and the defendant promises to assume criminal responsibility for it (hereinafter "the defendant promises to take over all of the defendant retirement allowances, each of which is the amount of credit borrowed from the plaintiff, to the plaintiff.").
The facts that the account was drawn up, and that the above 350 million won included the debt amount of the borrowed money of this case, there is no dispute between the parties.
Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant prepared the above letter and expressed to the Plaintiff the intent to approve the existence of the obligation to borrow the instant loan, and the extinctive prescription shall resume from October 14, 2005, which was the date of the above letter, and the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order seeking the payment of the said loan only after May 31, 2016, which was later ten years after the date of the above letter.