beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.08 2013가단7697

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 6, 2010, C filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of loans of KRW 37 million and damages for delay against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s former wife (hereinafter “ separate lawsuit”) with Busan District Court Branch Branch Decision 2010Kadan233.

B. While the Plaintiff filed an application for a separate lawsuit, the above court rendered a decision on the legal aid for the attorney’s fee to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on August 13, 2010, the Plaintiff appointed the Defendant, who is an attorney-at-law, as the attorney, as the attorney, and thereafter, the Defendant conducted a separate lawsuit as the Plaintiff’s attorney.

C. On October 26, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment on October 26, 2010 that “C shall pay jointly and severally KRW 34.8 million and delay damages, and D shall pay KRW 2.2 million and delay damages.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that when the defendant brought a separate lawsuit as the plaintiff's legal representative, the plaintiff did not claim extinctive prescription, despite the lapse of five years' extinctive prescription, as a commercial claim arising from the loan of business funds, and thereby lost the plaintiff's separate lawsuit. This asserts to the purport that since the defendant violated the mandatory's duty of care and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's loss, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages.

B. The act of borrowing business funds cannot be deemed as an act of preparing a commercial activity that is the object of business in view of the nature of the act itself. However, the subjective intent of the actor was a preparatory act for business, and the other party was also an act of preparing for business upon the explanation of the actor.