beta
Text
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, on February 12, 1998, borrowed 30 million won at the interest rate of 16% per annum, 25% per annum, 25%, and the loan period until February 11, 1999. However, as of July 13, 2013, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the above loan, and the remaining principal amount is 21,036,711 won, the remaining interest or delay damages amount is 23,240,531 won, and the North Young-gu Agricultural Cooperative transferred the principal and interest, etc. to the Plaintiff to restrain non-performing loans on or around June 28, 2013. The Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the credit and received a notification to the Defendant on or around June 23, 2014, and there is no dispute between the parties at that time.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4,277,242 won in total and 21,036,711 won in total, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from July 15, 2015 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defense
A. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant asserted that the period of the loan has expired five years after the expiration of the period of the loan, and that the statute of limitations has expired on October 22, 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff was approved of the Defendant’s partial repayment on October 22, 2009, and that there was a notice of assignment of claims on June 23, 2014, before five years have passed thereafter, and thus, the statute
B. We examine the judgment. Since it is apparent that the lawsuit in this case was filed more than five years from October 22, 2009 when the last partial payment was made, the issue is whether the extinctive prescription has been interrupted due to the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims.
However, on June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant and delivered to the Defendant around that time. However, the above notice of assignment of claims has no effect of interrupting extinctive prescription for the following reasons.
In other words, evidence No. 7-.