가등기의 본등기절차이행
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant added the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the argument that the defendant added in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's defense was introduced by the plaintiff to make an investment in H's business by allowing the plaintiff to invest in the venture business, and as H failed to operate the investment business, the plaintiff issued a certificate of loan at the plaintiff's request. Thus, the loan claim in this case is a commercial claim with a five-year extinctive prescription.
B. Although extinctive prescription is complete if a claim arising out of a judgment commercial activity is not exercised for five years, even if all evidence submitted by the defendant are based on all evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that a claim on a loan of this case is a merchant or the defendant as a claim arising out of a commercial activity
The period of extinctive prescription under the Civil Act applies to the instant loan claim in a monetary transaction between individuals. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s lending of the instant loan to the Plaintiff from May 25, 2007 to October 25, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was September 12, 2017. As such, the period of extinctive prescription under the Civil Act expired for part of the said loan.
However, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation for the loan of this case on August 19, 2009, the fact that the Defendant completed a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on each of the land of this case based on the purchase and sale reservation constitutes an approval of obligation and thus, the extinctive prescription was interrupted. It is evident that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit within 10 years from that time.
Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.