logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.13 2016나2363
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims and the plaintiff's claims are all dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a credit service provider that engages in credit business under the trade name of “C,” and on May 8, 2002, lent KRW 2 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant to pay the principal and interest of the loan in an equal amount of KRW 30,000,000 per day for 80 days in total.

On the same day, the defendant issued and delivered to the plaintiff a promissory note with the issue date of May 8, 2002, the par value of 2.5 million won, and the due date of payment.

B. In addition, on May 16, 2002, the Plaintiff lent KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant on May 16, 2002, and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant to make equal payment of KRW 3 million per day for 100 days in total by August 23, 2002.

On the same day, the defendant issued and delivered to the plaintiff, May 16, 2002, par value 2.4 million won, payment place, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Promissory Notes payable at sight.

C. The Plaintiff transferred his claim under each of the above loan agreements to the Defendant to the eth Loan Co., Ltd., and the Intervenor acquiring the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was finally acquired through the eth deposit loan and e.g., e., e., e., e., e

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff and the plaintiff takeover intervenor asserted that they have the obligation of the defendant to pay the principal and interest of the claim under each of the above loan agreements, and the defendant asserts that the commercial extinctive prescription has been completed.

B. According to the facts found above, it is clear that the above loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaging in credit business is a commercial activity, and since claims arising from the above loan agreement, which is a commercial activity, are subject to the extinctive prescription for commercial claims, claims arising from each of the above loan agreements will run from August 24, 2002, which is the day following the date of the final payment.

However, it is clear that the lawsuit of this case was filed on April 16, 2008 after five years from the lawsuit of this case.

arrow