대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 of the basic facts, the plaintiff's account in the name of the defendant for a bank amounting to KRW 7 million on February 16, 2007, and the same year.
4. It is recognized that the Defendant remitted KRW 20 million to the new bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on September 23, 2007, in total, KRW 3 million and KRW 10 million on February 5, 2008 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The fact that no agreement was made at the time of payment, and that the Defendant remitted KRW 1 million to the new bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on September 23, 2007.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 19 million won (20 million won-1 million won) and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's defense asserts that the defendant's above loan claim of the plaintiff was extinguished by the statute of limitations.
The five-year commercial prescription prescribed by the Commercial Act is applicable to a claim arising from a commercial activity (Article 64). In this case, a claim arising from a commercial activity is either a claim arising from a bilateral commercial activity, or a claim arising from a unilateral commercial activity, regardless of whether a claim arising from such unilateral commercial activity is a commercial activity for the obligee or for the obligor.
(1) The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff, a merchant of the Republic of Korea, was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff was a merchant of the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff was a merchant of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff was a merchant of the Republic of Korea.