beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s claim for loans (No. 2014 Ghana34917) against the Plaintiff is made.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 9, 2003, when borrowing KRW 9,100,00 from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”), the Plaintiff and Nonparty D issued one promissory note as of December 9, 2003 (hereinafter “the instant promissory note”) with the addressee, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 9,10,000,000, the date of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, and the date of issuance, the Plaintiff D and the Defendant issued one promissory note as of December 9, 2003 (hereinafter “the instant promissory note”). As to the instant promissory note as of December 9, 2003, the notarial deed was signed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the effect that the notary public would have the effect of compulsory execution under the instant promissory note as of December 1723, 203 (hereinafter “the instant notarial deed”).
B. On May 15, 2014, the Defendant asserted that based on the instant authentic deed, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,100,000 to the Plaintiff at interest rate of 20% per annum, and for 100 days from the date of loan, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of the loan (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) under this court’s 2014 Ghana34917. On June 5, 2014, the court rendered a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision of this case”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 9,10,000 and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from December 9, 2003 to the date of full payment.”
C. On July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff failed to file an objection to the instant decision even after receiving the instant decision, and the instant decision became final and conclusive on August 2, 2014.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion had already expired the extinctive prescription prior to the instant decision.
Since the statute of limitations proceeds from the time when the right can be exercised (Article 166(1) of the Civil Act), the health unit and the defendant lend money to the plaintiff with respect to the repayment period of the borrowed money in this case.