On November 14, 2003, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of trading used in used cars (hereinafter “instant loan”) and paid KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant B with interest rate of KRW 5% on February 14, 2004 after deducting KRW 1,00,000 as interest rate of KRW 1,00,000.

Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s debt of the instant loan.

On August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 13,115,076 regarding the instant loans in the procedure of voluntary auction conducted with regard to the real estate owned by Defendant B.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including a serial number), and the above facts of recognition as to the ground for claim as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the loan Nos. 20,000,000 and interest and delay damages.

The Defendants asserted that this case’s loan was borrowed by the Defendants to be used for the operating funds of Co., Ltd., which was operated by Defendant C as the representative director, and the Plaintiff operating a used car brokerage business was well aware of this case’s loan’s loan claims. Thus, the above company’s commercial credit is the actual debtor. However, the instant lawsuit clearly asserted that the Plaintiff filed a claim five years after the lapse of the commercial extinctive prescription period from August 4, 2007, which was the day following the day when the Plaintiff received dividends in the auction procedure.

Judgment

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that E is a substantial debtor of the loan claim of this case.

The Defendants’ assertion includes the assertion that the act of borrowing on behalf of an individual representative director constitutes a commercial activity, but the company is deemed to be a merchant.