약정금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff, a stock company with the purpose of construction business, etc. on December 30, 2007, lent KRW 131,600,000 to the defendant, who was a stock company with the purpose of construction business, etc., as of December 31, 2010, and did not repay it. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above loans and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The judgment of the defendant on the defense of the defendant, however, the defendant, at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, raised a defense that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the above loans had already been extinguished by the extinctive prescription
On the other hand, since the Defendant, a merchant, borrowed money from the Plaintiff for his own operation, the lending claim is a commercial activity. As such, the five-year extinctive prescription is applicable pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act since the lending claim was a claim arising from a commercial activity. Since it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 27, 2016 with the lapse of five years from the due date, the said lending claim expired by prescription.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.
[Plaintiff’s actual representative interest of the Defendant, and there is no evidence to deem that C had been in the position of joint and several sureties at the time of the loan as a joint and several sureties’s repayment of KRW 2 million in cash around June 2013. However, even if C partly performed the loan as a joint and several sureties for the Defendant’s loan obligation under the above loan, such partial repayment does not have the effect of suspending the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation (no evidence exists to deem that C was in the position of joint and several sureties
C) At the time, the Defendant’s representative director was not the Defendant’s representative director on June 2013 only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 11.
or on behalf of the defendant, there was a right to repay the above loan or to approve the debt.