2. The Defendant’s defense of the extinctive prescription by Defendant A constitutes a merchant, and the obligation of the Defendant’s loan was expired on April 13, 2013, when five years have elapsed since the due date for payment with commercial claim, and even if the Dayang Agricultural Cooperatives was not a merchant, the Defendant’s receipt of the loan of this case is for restaurant business, and the obligation of the loan of this case was completed five years with commercial claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

In light of the overall provisions of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, even if an agricultural cooperative loans necessary funds to its members and receives interest and overdue interest based on the prescribed interest rate, such an act of payment is difficult to be regarded as an act of running a business to enhance the economic status, which is the purpose of Article 1 of the same Act, and it is difficult to view it as an act of "for profit-making". Thus, the defendant's assertion that the loan of this case constitutes a commercial activity as a merchant and the obligation of the above defendant is a commercial claim cannot be accepted.

In addition, in full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 above, the defendant obtained the loan in this case and indicated “other” without indicating the purpose of the fund use in the application form for the loan in question, and the fact that the loan use is indicated as household funds to the director of the loan in Chungcheongnam-do Agricultural Cooperatives.