1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. As to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim (the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established because there is no dispute over the part of the defendant's seal imprint) (the defendant asserts that D is arbitrarily affixed and sealed the defendant's seal, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion is without merit) and Eul evidence No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000 to the defendant on September 7, 1995, and the payment period is set at 5% per annum, interest rate is set at 15% per annum, interest rate is set at 5% per annum, and delay damages is set at 15% per annum, and the defendant loses the benefit of the time limit by delaying the repayment of the principal and interest (hereinafter referred to as "loan of this case") and can be acknowledged as the fact that the defendant lost the benefit of time due to delay.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 14,932,583 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate, from January 1, 2003 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The Defendant alleged that the instant loan had ceased to exist due to the completion of the statute of limitations. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant loan had ceased to exist due to the completion of the statute of limitations, and that the Defendant lost the benefit of time on December 31, 2002 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2016, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed, is apparent in the record.

On the other hand, in addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, since the plaintiff applied for a payment order for the loan of this case as of May 16, 2006 at the Yan District Court of Gwangju District Court of Gwangju District on May 16, 2006 and the above payment order became final and conclusive on June 2, 2006, the extinctive prescription of the loan of this case was suspended, and as long as the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on May 30, 2016 for which 10 years have not passed since the date of the above confirmation, the plaintiff's second objection pointing this out has merit, and eventually the defendant's second objection is justified.