beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff loaned money under the name of deposit money or living expenses to be returned from the defendant, and the defendant lent 16,80,000 won in total over 16 times from October 14, 200 to April 30, 2002. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the above loan No. 16,800,000 won and delay damages. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the above loan No. 16,80,00
2. The defendant's defense is proved to have expired by the statute of limitations for each of the loans in this case. Thus, since the defendant's defense is proved to have expired by the statute of limitations for each of the loans in this case, the statute of limitations for each of the above loans has run individually from the time when each of the loans occurred because the period for payment for each of the loans in this case has not been fixed. The plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is obvious in the record that the loan in this case was filed on July 15, 2013 after the lapse of 10 years from April 30, 202, which occurred last, since each of the loans in this case had already expired
As to this, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as a crime of fraud, and the defendant received a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 on May 6, 2003 by the Seocho District Court Branch Branching 2003 high-level 975, and the above summary order became final and conclusive on August 30, 2003, and thus, the extinctive prescription of each of the loans of this case was suspended until August 30, 2003. However, the grounds for suspending the extinctive prescription are limited to those stipulated in Articles 168 through 177 of the Civil Act, and it cannot be said that the extinctive prescription of each of the loans of this case was suspended merely because the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as a crime of fraud or the defendant was punished as a crime of fraud
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is justified.