beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 205,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 30% per annum from October 24, 2009 to July 14, 2014; and (b).
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including branch numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 6 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff's maturity period of reimbursement three months after the defendant's request for a loan of construction funds on July 9, 2009, and the interest rate of three months after July 9, 2009, shall be set as three copies per month;
7.23.4,000,000
7.31.15,000,000
8. The fact that a sum of KRW 205,00,000 and KRW 205,000,000 on October 24, 101 is remitted to the account designated by the Defendant, and that a sum of KRW 205,00,000 is leased to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”) may be recognized.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 205,00,000 won of the leased principal and 30% per annum from October 24, 2009 to July 14, 2014, 25% per annum from the next day to February 7, 2018, and 24% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks within the maximum interest rate prescribed by the Agreement and the Interest Limitation Act.
2. Determination as to the completion of extinctive prescription
A. As to the judgment on the defendant's objection to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, since the defendant defenses that the defendant extinguished the extinctive prescription period, the plaintiff's lending of construction funds to the defendant can be deemed as an act for the defendant's business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7863, May 27, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 98Da23195, May 12, 2000). Thus, the loan claim of this case is a commercial claim and its five-year commercial prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applicable. Thus, since the fact that the request for the payment order of this case was made on October 9, 2009 or May 8, 2018, which was five years after the expiration of the five-year period from January 24, 2010, it is obvious that the above loan was extinguished by the extinctive prescription period, barring special circumstances.
B. The plaintiff's extinctive prescription.