beta
Text
1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.
The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 500,000,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 11, 2007, the Defendants prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff each certificate of borrowing KRW 500 million with respect to the borrowed amount.
Each of the above loan certificates stated that “the period of use”: the condition under which one billion won is repaid within 60 days, is “the purpose”: “the funds to implement the G project site.”
B. On July 12, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 500 million to Defendant C’s financial account (hereinafter “the instant loan”).
【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the claim (the part concerning the conjunctive claim) withdrawn the claim for damages by the primary claimant against the Defendants in this court, and accordingly, the part concerning the primary claim against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance became null and void.
According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount of KRW 500 million and its delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion that the statute of limitations expired, 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 a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be presumed to be an act for his/her business.” Thus, in order to reverse such presumption, a merchant’s act without distinction is presumed to be an act on behalf of his/her business and is presumed to be an act on behalf of his/her business, and thus, is presumed to be an act on behalf of his/her business, and thus, in order to reverse such presumption, a person who asserts the opposing facts is liable to prove it (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3760, May 10, 2012).