대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3 as to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant (the defendant was changed as of April 14, 2008 as to the trade name before the change, the F, the representative director G, and the current status of April 14, 2009) entered into an agreement to pay 42 million won to Ha who is the mother of the designated parties as of October 30, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the contract amount of this case"); H died on April 27, 2014, and the plaintiff, his spouse, 3/9, and the designated parties of the children, were succeeded to the ratio of 2/9, respectively, and according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant and the designated parties are obligated to pay the amount of money under each of the agreement of this case among inheritance shares, unless any other special circumstances exist.
2. The defendant's assertion that the contract amount of this case has expired by the statute of limitations. According to the above evidence, the defendant is a corporation operating precious metals and related products manufacturing business, wholesale and retail business, etc., and the defendant may recognize the fact that he is a merchant of the Commercial Act, and the defendant shall pay the contract amount of this case to H on October 3, 2008 as principal and interest sold to H. According to the above facts, the contract under which the defendant shall pay the contract amount of this case to H constitutes a commercial act for the defendant's business. According to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, the contract under which the defendant shall pay the contract amount of this case to H is an act for the defendant's business, and the contract under which the defendant shall pay the contract amount of this case to H is an act for the defendant's business, and the prescription period for his claim arising from a commercial act is terminated by five years. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is apparent in the record that the plaintiff's claim of this case was filed on October 2, 2014.
As to this, the Plaintiff’s former representative director G has suspended prescription by approving the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the instant agreed amount.