대여금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant’s amounting to KRW 38,00,000 and its amount to the Plaintiff shall be from October 2, 2015 to December 8, 2016.
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent 40 million won to the defendant on July 16, 2004, 3,000,000 won on July 20, 2004, and 5,000,000 won on July 30, 2004, and 48,000,000 won to the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 10,00,000 for the loan principal (=48,000,000 - 10,0000 - 10,0000) remaining after deducting the Plaintiff’s repayment from the Plaintiff on September 30, 2005 (i.e., the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 2, 2015 to December 8, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of the first instance where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation of this case from October 2, 2015 to the date of full payment, and the damages for delay calculated at 10% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings
(Provided, however, the Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from August 1, 2004, which was two days after the last loan date to October 1, 2015, which was the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case. However, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff had arrived before August 1, 2004. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit).
A. The gist of the defense is that the defendant was a merchant operating the business of removing the building at the time of borrowing, and thus the plaintiff's above loan claims constitute commercial claims. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed five years from July 16, 2004 or September 30, 2005, which was the date of partial repayment of the defendant's loan, the plaintiff's above loan claims were extinguished after the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a merchant at the time of borrowing the evidence No. 1 merely with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it
Therefore, the defendant's defense, which was based on the premise that the above loan claim is a commercial claim, is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is above.