beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is a company that operates real estate construction planning and construction supervision business, and the defendant is a company that operates real estate sale and construction business management business, and the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with the defendant on May 13, 201 that the plaintiff lends 50 million won to the defendant on a yearly basis, within 6% of interest per annum, within 12 months from the due date of payment contract (hereinafter "non-loan agreement of this case"), and pursuant to the loan agreement of this case, the plaintiff transferred 30 million won to the defendant on May 13, 201 and 20 million won on the same month, and there is no clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above 50 million won (=20 million won) as the return of the loan, the agreed interest and delay damages as stipulated in the loan agreement of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
On the other hand, the act of the merchant is presumed to be an act for business, and the act of the merchant's act for business is deemed to be a commercial activity (Article 47 of the Commercial Act), and the extinctive prescription expires if a claim arising from a commercial activity is not exercised for five years (Article 64 of the Commercial Act), and as seen earlier, the plaintiff and the defendant constitute a stock company as an obligatory merchant, and as such, the loan for consumption in this case constitutes a commercial activity presumed to be a commercial activity and thus, the contract for the loan in this case is presumed to be conducted for business, and as such, it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on March 16, 2020, which was five years after the expiration of the prescription period from May 13, 201, which is the date of the contract (see, e.g., May 13, 2012).
Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's claim is without merit.
2. If so, the plaintiff's claim.