beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s annual period from November 14, 2018 to January 31, 2019, as to KRW 84,725,561 and KRW 50,000 among the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
2. Determination
A. A. The judgment based on the deemed confession as to the cause of the claim (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant did not appear on the date of pleading after the submission of the written reply with the purport that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan has expired on February 7, 2019. Therefore, this part may be deemed as a confession because the Plaintiff did not give any reply to the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim was asserted.)
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was extinguished by the prescription period of five years, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of five years.
The claim for the instant loan is governed by the statute of limitations with commercial bonds, and the prescription period is calculated from February 9, 201, which is the date of the loan. However, the statute of limitations for the instant loan is the principle from the date following the maturity date, i.e., the maturity date.
In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the benefit of time has been lost prior to the due date pursuant to the clause of loss of time limit, or that there was no evidence to acknowledge it, the date of the loan favorable to the defendant shall be deemed the initial date
In full view of each of the statements in evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the defendant paid interest on the loan of this case on February 9, 2014. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the loan of this case was suspended by the defendant's approval of debt repayment on February 9, 2014, and the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 21, 2018 before five years have elapsed since the date of the interruption of the above lawsuit, and the defendant's defense of the extinctive prescription is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.