beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff continued monetary transactions with the defendant, after settling accounts on May 17, 2001 with his mother, paid 5.6 million won from the defendant C several times from July 27, 2004 to March 11, 2007. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay 3% of the interest on the loan, the due date of payment on May 17, 2003, and 5.8 million won from the defendant during several times from January 19, 2004 to June 22, 2004, and 5.6 million won from the defendant's mother, to March 27, 2004 to March 11, 2007, after appropriating the above payment to the plaintiff.
B. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remaining principal 14.2 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 18, 2003 to the following day after the due date for payment without any interest agreement, on May 17, 2003, when a promissory note with a face value of 20 million won is issued to the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff losses for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, since the defendant issued a promissory note with a face value of 20 million won to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserts that at the time of the preparation of the above notarial deed, the defendant agreed to the interest rate of 3% per month with the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the plaintiff is the plaintiff that the 6 million won out of the 20 million won won was the interest source that will occur in the future. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is the case of the plaintiff.