beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), it is recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant on Nov. 13, 2007 with the due date as of Mar. 13, 2008, and lent KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant on Dec. 11, 2008 with the due date as of Mar. 11, 2009.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's respective loans against the defendant were extinguished by prescription five years after the due date for payment due to commercial transactions.
A claim arising from an act of both parties as a commercial activity as well as a claim arising from an act of both parties' commercial activity constitutes a commercial claim, to which the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies, and such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also the ancillary commercial activity carried on by a merchant for his/her business. Under Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act, a merchant's act is presumed to be carried on for his/her business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da10793, Jul. 10, 1998). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1 of Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act, it is recognized that the defendant at the time of the loan in this case is a merchant who carries on the manufacturing business of fraternity and saw, and therefore, it is presumed that the
Therefore, the period of extinctive prescription is five years for the instant loan claim. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 27, 2015, which was five years after the due date of each of the above claims, the Plaintiff’s respective loan claims against the Defendant were extinguished by extinctive prescription.
C. On April 2012, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant, respectively.