beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent 1,0710,000 won to the defendant on February 23, 199, with the maturity of payment on May 23, 199, with the interest rate of 30% per annum (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the loan of this case 1,0710,000 won and the delay damages thereon to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
2. Determination on the statute of limitations defense
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the ten-year extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has expired, and as to this, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to repay the instant loan obligation several times from around 2008 to December 23, 2013, and accordingly, the Defendant suspended the extinctive prescription or renounced the benefits of extinctive prescription, and further, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription violates the good faith principle.
B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the ten-year statute of limitations is applied to the instant loan claims. Since the instant application for the payment order is apparent in the record that the instant loan claims were filed on March 25, 2014 after the ten-year period, which was from May 23, 1999, the due date for the payment of the instant loan claims, the ten-year statute of limitations has expired, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable, since the instant loan claims had already been extinguished before the instant application for the payment order was made. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to repay the instant loan obligations or expressed the Defendant’s intent to repay the instant loan obligations to the Plaintiff around 2008, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s refusal of the statute of limitations or the waiver of the benefit of the statute of limitations has no merit.
In addition, evidence No. 13 is the purport of the whole pleadings.