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. The facts that the plaintiff lent 60 million won to the defendant on April 7, 2006 without setting interest and maturity for payment can be acknowledged by considering the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs A and 2, or there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 20, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is clear that the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant defense that the plaintiff's above loan credit against the defendant (hereinafter "the loan credit of this case") had already expired.

On the other hand, the facts that the loan claim of this case is a bond with no fixed time limit, and in principle, the extinctive prescription shall run from the date of establishment of the loan claim of this case. The fact that the application for the payment order of this case was made on April 29, 2016 after the lapse of 10 years from April 7, 2006, which was the date of establishment of the loan of this case, is apparent in the record, but according to the purport of the statement of evidence No. 2 of this case and the argument as a whole, the plaintiff could recognize the fact that the defendant executed the provisional seizure order of this case on September 2013, 2013, which was owned by the defendant as the claim claim of this case, including the Daegu District Court 2013Kadan6958 on real estate of 531 square meters, which was owned by the defendant before the expiration of the time limit. Thus, the above extinctive prescription is interrupted.

Ultimately, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.

3. The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's defense of repayment is also a defense that the defendant paid all the loan claims of this case. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant's defense on November 26, 2007.