beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 154,80,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 1, 1997 to June 29, 2005 and June 30, 2005 for the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. At around October 13, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim against Daejeon District Court 2004Gahap10514. The cause of the claim was to seek payment of KRW 130 million lent to the Defendant and KRW 248 million that should be returned from the Defendant. 2) The above court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim seeking payment of money as stated in the instant claim on October 13, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 2005.
3) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 12, 2015, 2015, with a view to suspending the extinctive prescription of ten (10) years for the principal and interest of the instant judgment claim and extending the prescription period. [Evidence Evidence: the description of evidence A and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has an obligation to pay the plaintiff 150 million won per annum from August 1, 1997 to June 29, 2005 with 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from June 30, 2005 to September 30, 2015, Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015); 20% per annum as stipulated in the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015); and 15% per annum as stipulated in the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26535, Sep. 25, 2015).
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case can be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims can not be accepted, and it is dismissed. However, it is decided as per Disposition with the application of the proviso of Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.