대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
1. In full view of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff can be recognized as having lent KRW 200 million to the co-defendant B of the first instance court on June 19, 2009 with the defendant's guarantee on June 18, 2010. Thus, the defendant is jointly liable to pay KRW 200 million and damages for delay jointly with the co-defendant B of the first instance court unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription
A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's loans are commercial claims and the five-year extinctive prescription has expired from the due date.
B. Determination 1) Article 47 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed a commercial activity." Article 47 (2) of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of the merchant shall be presumed to be an act of the merchant on behalf of his/her business." Thus, the act of the merchant on which it is unclear whether the merchant on behalf of his/her business is carried on is presumed to be an act of the commercial activity pursuant to Article 47 of the Commercial Act, and in order to reverse such presumption, the person who asserts other facts against him/her is responsible for proving it. However, even if the merchant does not engage in the business of lending money, there may be cases where he/she lends money for the purpose of acquiring interest due to the lending of money for his/her business interest or convenience, and therefore, it is presumed that the act of lending money by the merchant is an act of lending money for the purpose of acquiring interest, unless there is any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008).