beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,700,000, and its annual rate from November 27, 2013 to December 19, 2014, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 7 through 11, the plaintiff may lend the defendant a total of KRW 50 million on April 30, 2003, KRW 2,000,000 on May 13, 2003, KRW 6,000 on May 30, 2003, KRW 300,000 on July 31, 2003, KRW 1,000 on October 16, 200, KRW 500,000 on October 30, 200, KRW 200 on October 30, 200, KRW 200 on November 5, 200, KRW 200 on the loan, and KRW 7,16,200 on July 31, 200 on the loan, barring special circumstances.
B. As to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had no speech in relation to this case, and that each of the above loans claim had expired by prescription. Thus, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff's respective loans against the defendant were extinguished by prescription since the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendant were not set separately, and therefore, the extinctive prescription will run from the establishment of the claim. The plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was filed on April 30, 2003, KRW 2,000,000 on May 13, 2003, KRW 6,000,000 on May 30, 2003, and KRW 5,000,000 on July 31, 2003, and KRW 5,000,000 on July 31, 200, and each of the above claims had already been filed on October 4, 2013 prior to the lapse of prescription. Thus, each of the above claims in this case had been clearly asserted by prescription.
On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the defendant et al. were engaged in a partnership business for the Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Dok in the early 2003, and that the defendant's remaining claims did not borrow money from the defendant by again remitting the money deposited in the construction fund to the plaintiff to the defendant. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
C. Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.