beta
Text
1. The defendant's notarial deed of a loan for consumption by means of security (No. 432) against the plaintiff is a notarial deed of the defendant's number of law firms.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant delivered 80 million won as a contract bond to the Plaintiff in order to be supplied with the land by the Plaintiff. To secure its return, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on October 16, 2008, prepared a notarial deed in the monetary loan contract for transfer security (hereinafter “notarial deed in this case”) in the number of law firms No. 432, 2008, in which “the Defendant lent 80 million won to the Plaintiff on July 20, 2008, but the due date is 24% per annum.”
B. The strike supply contract was terminated in the middle, and the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant the sum of 80 million won on May 20, 2010 and May 26, 2010.
C. However, the Defendant still remains unpaid, and filed an application for entry in the defaulters' list against the Plaintiff at the Ji Government District Court Goyang Branch 2017Kau57.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 123, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million on May 26, 2010. However, if the Plaintiff appropriated KRW 16,303,849 calculated by 24% per annum from July 21, 2009 to May 26, 2010 as principal, the claim of KRW 43,297,663 is still in existence if the Plaintiff added the interest calculated by 24% per annum for the remainder of KRW 16,303,849 to principal.
B. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant asserted was extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription for commercial matters.
C. Since both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are merchants, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff is subject to five-year commercial prescription.
However, as recognized, the Defendant’s claim becomes due on July 20, 2009, and the five years thereafter passed on July 20, 2014, and its claim became retroactively extinguished.
(3) The defendant is not able to perform compulsory execution any more on the basis of the Notarial Deed of this case, and the defendant is not able to perform any compulsory execution on the basis of the Notarial Deed of this case, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.