beta
Text
1. The defendant shall calculate 50 million won to the plaintiff at the rate of 20% per annum from September 7, 2007 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The fact that the plaintiff set the amount of KRW 500 million to the defendant on May 23, 2007 at the maturity of September 6, 2007, and the delay interest rate at 20% per annum on September 6, 2007 is not disputed between the parties, or that the plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 500 million to the defendant on September 23, 20
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 500 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
2. The Defendant’s claim for the extinctive prescription defense is a defense that the extinctive prescription has expired since the Defendant applied for the instant payment order after the lapse of ten years from May 23, 2007, which was prepared a loan certificate.
In light of the above, the extinctive prescription is run from the time when a right becomes objectively created and is able to exercise the right, and only during the period when the right is unable to be exercised. In this context, the term “non-exercise of the right” refers to a cause of disability as to the exercise of the right, such as the non-performance of the period or non-performance of the conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da63150, May 31, 2007). As such, the time when the due period has arrived shall be the starting point of the extinctive prescription.
On a different premise, the defendant's defense premised on May 23, 2007, which is the time when the starting point of the statute of limitations for the above loan obligations is not the time for maturity but the loan certificate was prepared, is without merit.
Rather, on September 6, 2007, the due date for repayment of the loan obligation was seen earlier, and on September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the seizure and collection order on September 4, 2017, which was earlier than the expiration of 10 years from the due date, and on September 6, 2017, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order, and accordingly, the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s re-appeal pointing this out is reasonable, and the Defendant’s defense does not appear to be either
3. In conclusion, the defendant is due and payable to the plaintiff KRW 500 million.