대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and each claim added in the trial are dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the entries and the purport of the evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 10 million to the account in the name of the Defendant on February 10, 2007, KRW 5 million on March 29, 2007, KRW 20 million on April 24, 2007, and KRW 5 million on April 24, 2007 (hereinafter “instant remittance”). The Plaintiff is a partner of C, and the Defendant is recognized as the wife of C.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff remitted the instant transfer to the Defendant and lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant. 2) Even if the Plaintiff lent the said KRW 20 million to C, the act of borrowing money constitutes a juristic act regarding daily home affairs as prescribed in Article 832 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C.
3. Even if the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, he did not have the intent or ability to complete the payment, but he received the remittance of this case by deceiving the plaintiff, and thus, he is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage.
B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and C merely borrowed money from the Plaintiff and used the account in the name of the Defendant.
Even if the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant, the loan claim expired after the lapse of five-year commercial extinctive prescription.
3. Determination
A. It is insufficient to conclude that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant solely on the basis of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4 regarding the loan claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the testimony of the witness C at the trial, the Plaintiff’s remittance of this case appears to have been lent to C. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.
Even if the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant, the loans shall be subject to the Commercial Extinctive Prescription for the following reasons, and unless there is no proof of the due date for the loans.