beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from August 11, 2016 to December 20, 2016.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the assertion on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant without any interest agreement among the policemen on June 2004 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(1) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from August 11, 2016 to December 20, 2016, which is the following day after a copy of the complaint of this case, indicating the Plaintiff’s intent to urge the performance, to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. The Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30 million won per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the decision, until December 20, 2016, which is the date of full payment, to the day of full payment.
2. Defense and judgment of the parties
A. As to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s defense against the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations expired on June 30, 2015 after ten years from June 30, 2005, which was due date for the Plaintiff’s assertion.
In this case, since the creditor can seek the performance of the obligation at any time with the bonds for which the repayment period has not been determined, the starting point of the statute of limitations is the time when the loan claim in this case occurred.
Therefore, around June 16, 2014, the ten-year extinctive prescription period for the instant loan claim was expired after the lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations from the police officer around June 16, 2014, which was the date on which the instant loan claim was created. It is evident in the record that the instant complaint was received by the instant court on August 3, 2016, which was the expiration of the said statute of limitations.
Therefore, the defendant's above statute of limitations defense is reasonable.
B. The Plaintiff’s debt.