소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the statement of the witness C and D in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “each testimony of the witness C and D”; and (b) the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following '2. Additional determination', and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is not that of this case's sales contract in the qualification of the merchant operating real estate rental business, but that of this case's sales contract does not constitute an act of "real estate rental business" due to its nature. Thus, the defendant's conclusion of this case's sales contract does not constitute commercial activity.
Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendant is not a commercial claim, the five-year commercial prescription period is not applicable.
B. 1) Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed a commercial activity," and Article 47(2) of the same Act provides that "the act of the merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be presumed to be an act of the merchant on behalf of his/her business." Thus, in order to presume that the act of the merchant on behalf of his/her business is an act of the commercial activity and to reverse such presumption, the person who asserts other facts against him/her is liable to prove such other facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008). 2) In light of the above legal principles, according to the foregoing, the fact that the defendant was a merchant on behalf of the real estate leasing business at the time of entering into the instant sales contract
The act of the Defendant, a merchant, entered into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, is presumed to have been done for business purposes in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act.