beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except where the defendant added the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2) to the assertion added in the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) At the time of around 2003, the Defendant did not borrow a total of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and even if a domestic loan was made, the Defendant paid the interest and principal at that time after the lapse of the ten-year period. 2) The extinctive prescription period has already expired for the loan claims asserted by the Plaintiff. 5 million won paid to the Plaintiff on May 2, 201, which was paid to the Plaintiff on May 2, 201, was voluntarily paid to the Defendant’s husband E to the Plaintiff, regardless of the Defendant’s demand by the Plaintiff, and thus, the interruption of prescription has no effect.
B. Determination 1) First of all, whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant or not, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above and the evidence stated in Gap 8 and 9, namely, ① the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff a loan certificate (Evidence A5) stating that “five million won is repaid until December 31, 2003 and remitted KRW 70,000 per month as interest,” and on August 19, 2003, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that “I would repay KRW 10 million until December 30, 2004” (Evidence A) from around December 30, 204, each of the above loan certificates is acknowledged as a disposal document, and the existence and content of the Plaintiff’s expression of intent in accordance with the contents of the document is acknowledged as a disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da3181, Dec. 31, 200; Supreme Court Decision 200Da3178, Feb. 19, 2007).