beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 140,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 7, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff may recognize that he lent KRW 140 million to the defendant on December 17, 1998.
The plaintiff shall claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery of the original payment order to the day of complete payment.
However, if there is no agreement regarding the time of return in a loan for consumption, the lender shall demand the return thereof with a reasonable period fixed (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act), and it is reasonable to view that the defendant is liable for delay from the day following the adjudication of this case for which a reasonable period has elapsed from the date of service
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 140 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 7, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the judgment of this case, to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired, and in the case of the loan claim with no agreement on the time of return, the extinctive prescription shall run from the time when a reasonable time has elapsed from the time when a peremptory notice on return can be given. Thus, it is apparent that ten years have passed yet.
However, according to Gap evidence No. 2, the defendant paid interest on the above loan claim to the plaintiff by February 2, 2008. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim is suspended by the defendant's payment of interest and the extinctive prescription shall begin to run anew from February 3, 2008. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.