1. The defendant shall pay 27,066,109 won to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 5, 1997, the Plaintiff loaned 40 million won to the Defendant on December 5, 200 due date, 13.5% per annum, and 18% per annum (hereinafter “instant first loan”), and on January 6, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement for self-reliance loan by setting the lending limit of KRW 10 million between the Defendant and the Defendant on January 6, 1998, the transaction period of KRW 10 million per annum, interest rate of January 6, 199, 13.5% per annum, and damages rate of KRW 18% per annum.
(hereinafter “instant second loan”). (b)
According to the Defendant’s delinquency in paying the principal and interest of each of the instant loans, the Plaintiff filed an application for the order of payment for each of the instant loans with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2005Da337, 338, 2005, and on August 4, 2005, the said court ordered payment of KRW 10,198,000 with respect to the instant loan 1, and ordered payment of KRW 8,989,000 with respect to the instant loan 2, and issued an order of payment from January 7, 199 to the full payment of KRW 17.5% per annum.
Each of the above payment orders was finalized on August 20, 2005.
C. On August 5, 2015, before the expiration of the ten-year extinctive prescription under each of the above payment orders, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant demanding the payment of KRW 27,066,109 in total of the balance of each of the above loans, and the said peremptory notice was served on August 7, 2015.
On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the instant payment order within six months from the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 27,066,109 of the loans of this case.
As to this, the defendant argues that the extinctive prescription has already expired since the plaintiff did not take any specific measure to suspend the extinctive prescription regarding each of the loans of this case during that period. However, the above argument is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted.