양수금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The party's assertion and its judgment
A. On September 2, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that, on the part of the Defendants’ decedents, EF, the Plaintiff received the claim for the loan (the loan balance as of April 23, 2018, KRW 56,192,129, the attempted interest KRW 118,290,170) from the Plaintiff and sought payment of the said principal and interest of loan from the Defendants, the heir of the netF, around June 28, 2013.
As to this, the defendants' claims for the above loans are five years of extinctive prescription, and are contrary to the purport that the extinctive prescription has expired.
B. (i) Even if a cooperative is a non-profit corporation for its establishment purpose, it is reasonable to regard a loan extended for a long time for the purpose of earning interest from non-member cooperatives as a commercial activity since it constitutes a business of lending loans under Article 46 subparagraph 8 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the statute of limitations is five years.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63749 Decided July 22, 2005, etc.). Meanwhile, the time when the extinctive prescription of a claim interrupted by participating in the auction procedure is re-ended by the time when the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da89880, Mar. 26, 2009). We examine the instant case in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.
On September 2, 2003, it is recognized that the distribution procedure was terminated on June 4, 2017 when the loan of this case was commenced on June 4, 2017, and the distribution procedure was completed on July 30, 2008.
However, since the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that the lawsuit was filed on May 29, 2018, much more than five years ago, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is ultimately deemed to be a claim after the completion of extinctive prescription.