대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “The fact that the delivery of real share certificates or the transfer of ownership was not made” in Section 5, Section 2 and Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is unreasonable, and that the plaintiff did not request transfer of ownership to C and did not exercise the right to share certificates.” The defendant’s assertion added in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional determination, and therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s conjunctive assertion not only borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff for business as the actual representative of E, but also constitutes a merchant as a certified public accountant. Therefore, the statute of limitations expires if each of the instant loans is not exercised for five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.
However, the Plaintiff did not exercise its claim for each of the instant loans from June 30, 2009 and March 16, 2009, the due date for payment, to which the Plaintiff had been due, for five years from March 16, 209. Therefore, the statute of limitations for each of the instant loans has expired.
B. The judgment merchant is engaged in commercial activities as the subject of rights and obligations arising from commercial activities, and the act of doing business is premised on the premise that the person who performs the act is qualified as the merchant in order to be subject to the Commercial Act as an auxiliary commercial activities. Even if a company is deemed as a merchant under the Commercial Act, the representative director, who is the institution of the company, is not the merchant, and even if the representative director borrowed money for the purpose of using it as the company's funds, it cannot be viewed as a commercial obligation,
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da7948 Decided November 10, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 201Da83226 Decided March 29, 2012, Supreme Court Decision 2011Da83226 Decided July 26, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da43594 Decided July 26, 2012). In this case, homicides, B’s entry in the evidence 17, and written evidence 17.