대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. As to the Defendants of the basic facts, there exists a standard loan transaction contract with the following contents (hereinafter “instant loan contract”).
Credit service provider: Defendant B and Defendant C’s joint guarantor: Interest rate of KRW 3 million (hereinafter “instant loan”): 4% per annum (48% per annum): Date of August 6, 2009: The term of loan expires on August 6, 2009: Statement No. 1
2. The Plaintiff, who operated the Plaintiff’s alleged credit business, lent KRW 3 million to Defendant B under the name of “D” as stated in the instant loan agreement, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed this.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above three million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
The Plaintiff registered as “F” in the course of operating a lending company and reported the closure of business as of April 17, 2008. The credit service provider of the instant loan is “D” and the date of the loan is only August 6, 2009.
(B) The Plaintiff asserted that “D” as stated in the instant loan agreement is merely an indication of the name of the business entity run by E, which is the Plaintiff’s day management employee, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).
Even if a credit service provider under the loan agreement of this case is the Plaintiff, the five-year commercial statute of limitations shall apply to the loan of this case. Since it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on April 24, 2016 after the lapse of five years from October 6, 2009, the maturity date of the loan of this case, the loan of this case has already expired, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case has no reason to view it as one of the copies or reasons.
(The Defendant’s conjunctive defenses for the completion of the statute of limitations). 4. The Plaintiff’s conclusion is the case.