1. The Defendant’s repayment of loans to the Plaintiff is enforceable by the Gwangju District Court Naju District Court 2010 tea700.

Facts of recognition

On September 28, 2010, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order stating that “4,600,000 won” and “26,460 won per annum from October 14, 200 to the date of full payment” shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum.

On October 4, 2010, the above payment order was served on the Defendants and became final and conclusive on October 19, 2010.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on October 21, 2019, KRW 4,250,000 on February 28, 2020, and KRW 4,250,00 on March 31, 2020.

[Ground] Facts without dispute and the purport of the plaintiff's argument in the whole argument that "the plaintiff's claim does not have an obligation to pay the plaintiff since the five-year extinctive prescription has lapsed with commercial claim. Meanwhile, according to the defendant's claim's 22,067,397 and 5,000 won repaid on October 21, 2019, 4,250,000 won repaid on February 28, 2020, and 4,250,000 won repaid on March 31, 2020, and 8,567,398 won remaining if the amount paid on March 31, 200." Thus, according to the above fact that compulsory execution exceeds the above 8,567,398 won, barring any special circumstance, the defendant has an obligation to urge the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff 4,60,000 won and damages for delay from 260% to 2014.

Although the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the statute of limitations has expired, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,500,000 as a sum between October 21, 2019 and March 31, 2020 for the repayment of the instant claim, as seen earlier. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the statute of limitations of the instant claim was interrupted by the Plaintiff’s approval or that the Plaintiff waived the benefit of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3580, Jun. 12, 2001). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

As to the plaintiff's assertion of repayment, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's repayment was first appropriated to the principal, and thus, the total amount of the above repayment 13,500.