beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Extension of loan claims;
A. On June 20, 2003, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to D.
At the time of the above lease, the repayment period was not agreed separately.
B. D died on March 30, 2014, and the Defendant is a sole heir as D’s child.
C. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for a judgment on limited recognition of inheritance with the Daegu Family Court Decision 2014Ra2499, and the said report on limited recognition of inheritance was accepted on November 11, 2014.
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 1-2, and the result of the inquiry of the fact about the Seogu EF head of the Daegu EF head of this court, the result of the appraiser G’s seal appraisal of the appraiser G, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the statute of limitations defense
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s claim for the loan against D was completed on June 20, 2013 after the lapse of 10 years from June 20, 2003, which was the date of the loan, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after the expiration of the extinctive prescription. 2) Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 24, 2014, the date when 30 million won was lent to D on June 20, 2003, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 20, 2014, which was later than 10 years from June 20, 2003.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) agreed to pay interest at 1% per month at the time of lending 30 million won to D. D paid interest to the Plaintiff. D deposited KRW 1 million on March 25, 2009, and KRW 1370,000 on March 23, 2014, respectively, with the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the H’s name. The extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the repayment of KRW 1 million on March 25, 2009, and the payment of KRW 1 million on March 23, 2014 was deposited on March 23, 2014, and the extinctive prescription was interrupted again due to repayment or debt approval, or the waiver of the extinctive prescription was made on March 23, 2014, based on each of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 4, No. 5-1, and No. 5-2, respectively, the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name of Hagu.