대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from April 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned KRW 40 million to defendant B on Nov. 17, 2005 with the due date fixed on Nov. 27, 2006 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and the defendant C has jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt of defendant B, who is the husband on the same day. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won and damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date following the due date for payment of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff from Apr. 12, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
2. Defendant C’s defense asserts that the instant loan was subject to the commercial prescription period of five years since the Defendants borrowed the instant loan for entertainment tavern business, and that the instant loan was subject to the lapse of five years from November 27, 2006, when five years have passed from November 27, 2006, and the instant payment order was filed on December 4, 2014, and thus, the instant loan claim expired by the statute of limitations.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendants borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff for an entertainment drinking house business, and even though according to the statement in the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that Defendant C was a merchant at the time of joint and several sureties’s lending of the instant loan, it cannot be deemed that the principal debtor of the instant loan is not the Defendant C but the Defendant B, the husband of the instant case, and even if the Defendant C is a merchant, it cannot be deemed that the act of joint and several sureties’s lending of the husband’s obligation is an act for
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.