대여금
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, it is recognized that the deceased loaned the defendant a total of KRW 10 million around March 4, 1998, and KRW 25 million around October 8, 199 without fixing the due date for payment. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, the sum of the above borrowed money, KRW 25 million, and delay damages incurred therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.
(On the other hand, the plaintiffs also sought legal interest under Article 55 (1) of the Commercial Act on the above 25 million won, but it cannot be deemed that the net A, a merchant, recommended the defendant to have engaged in the same business as himself/herself and lent money to the defendant, which is a penalty, and lending money. Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' legal interest claim is without merit). 2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s defense of each of the above loans was extinguished by prescription as a commercial claim.
B. Determination 1) In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 5, since each of the above loans is acknowledged as a commercial claim since the net Gap, which had been a merchant, lent the above 25 million won to the defendant who had been preparing for the mechanical business extracted from figures, as a whole, each of the above loans constitutes a commercial claim. 2) However, since each of the above loans is not fixed due date, as seen earlier, since the above loans have no fixed due date, the extinctive prescription period shall run from March 4, 1998 and October 8, 1999, which is the lending date, and since the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on March 5, 2015, which is five years after the commercial statute of limitations period, is apparent in the record, each of the above loans claim was already extinguished prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.
3. Judgment on the plaintiffs' re-defense
A. The Defendant, who interrupted extinctive prescription of the Plaintiffs’ re-appeal 1, paid each of the following amounts: (a) KRW 5 million on September 23, 2003; (b) KRW 600,000 on October 5, 2007; and (c) KRW 50,000 on January 24, 208.