2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On June 12, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9 million to Defendant B on September 30, 2007 and on condition of 2% per month of the interest rate (hereinafter “instant loan”), and at the time, Defendant C guaranteed the said loan obligation.

B. At the time of the instant lending, the Plaintiff was operating the said entertainment establishment D, and the Defendant B started to work at the said entertainment establishment from June 13, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the instant loan and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendants asserted that the instant loan claim expired by prescription.

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." Since Article 47(2) of the same Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be presumed to be an act of the merchant on behalf of his/her business," the act of the merchant whose business is not certain is presumed to be an act of the merchant on behalf of his/her business, and in order

However, even if a merchant does not engage in a business of lending money, there may be cases where he/she lends money for business interest or for business interest, or he/she lends money for the purpose of acquiring interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008). Thus, such a merchant’s lending of money is presumed to be conducted for business, unless there is any counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008). At the time of the instant lending, the Plaintiff operated a entertainment establishment at the Plaintiff’s entertainment establishment