대여금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 50 million won and 24% per annum from November 6, 2013 to the date of full payment.
1. The Defendants are obligated to return the loan, unless there are special circumstances, since there is no dispute over the loan under the grounds for the claim.
① Loans of 50 million won, Defendant Company’s principal debtor and Defendant C’s joint and several sureties on November 5, 2013; ② Loans of 50 million won in total from June 4, 2013 to December 4, 2012; dispute over Defendant C;
A. The claim (1) money is a commercial obligation that the Defendant Company, the merchant of the building business, lends the investment money for the sale of officetels from the Plaintiff.
(2) Paragraph (1) money is also received in relation to commercial activities in terms of investment in the construction and sale of officetels, not individually borrowed by the Defendant, a joint representative director at the time of the construction of officetels.
All of the above claims have arrived individually in 2013, and the plaintiff's claim has become extinct because it is apparent that five years have elapsed since the period of extinctive prescription for commercial claims has expired.
B. Determination 1) For the application of the extinctive prescription of a five-year commercial claim, the extinctive prescription shall be “claim arising from an commercial act”. Article 64 of the Commercial Act (In the event that no other provision is provided in this Act, the extinctive prescription shall expire unless the claim arising from a commercial act is exercised for five
The meaning of "the act caused by the commercial act" is that "a claim has occurred by the commercial act".
Supreme Court Decision 97Da9260 Delivered on August 26, 1997
Ga. In the instant case, there was a separate commercial activity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in addition to lending money to the Defendant.
The defendant is not allowed to assert whether it was caused by such commercial activity or not.
Furthermore, both parties should not be a merchant, but one of them should be a merchant, and even if the defendant is a representative of a profit-making corporation to be regarded as a merchant, the defendant is not a merchant.
This part of the argument is without merit.
2) Although it is no longer necessary to view the approval of the defendant, the defendant approved in writing from November 20 to June 28, 2017 on several occasions (A.).