대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact that the plaintiff set the repayment period of KRW 37 million to the defendant on November 21, 2003 on November 21, 2003 and lent it to the defendant on November 21, 2006 is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant is obligated to repay the loan of this case KRW 37 million to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
2. The defendant's defense against the defendant is proved to have extinguished upon the lapse of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period.
In order to reverse such presumption, a merchant's act is presumed to be for business pursuant to the provisions of Article 47 of the Commercial Act. In order to reverse such presumption, a person who asserts other opposing facts is liable to prove it.
However, even if a merchant who does not engage in a business of lending money, there may be cases where he/she lends money for the purpose of acquiring interest due to the lending of money or the surplus of operating capital for the benefit of his/her business, such act of lending money by a merchant is presumed to be for business unless there is any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008). The defendant borrowed the above 37 million won on the condition that he/she takes up payment to the plaintiff operating C at his/her place, and the defendant borrowed the above 37 million won on the condition that he/she takes up payment to the plaintiff working at the place, and in order to repay the above amount, he/she shall be able to pay the three years after his/her working at the time of November 21, 2003 through November 21, 2006. However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff agreed to do so and signed and sealed the cash tea (Evidence No. 1) to the defendant at the time of this case.