logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.01.28 2014나104283
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the wholesale and retail business, etc. in the Hanjin-gu, Songjin-gu. The defendant was a person who served as the president of the cooperative B.

B. On December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Industrial Bank of Korea (C) account under the name of the B cooperative.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 4;

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a loan of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant loan”). Accordingly, the Defendant, not the Defendant, borrowed the said money, or claimed by the Plaintiff, is against the fact that the extinctive prescription has already expired.

B. Under the relevant legal principles, 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 which constitutes a commercial activity is subject to the extinctive prescription of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such a commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity that is carried on by a merchant for his/her business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da23195, May 12, 2000), and Articles 5(2), 5(1), and 47(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, a company shall be deemed a merchant even if it does not engage in a commercial activity, and a merchant’s act is presumed to be carried on on behalf of the merchant, and thus, a company’s act is presumed to have been carried on for its business unless there is any counter-proof evidence.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7863 Decided May 27, 2005). B.

Judgment

Therefore, the plaintiff, who is engaged in wholesale and retail business, which is a health stand and kyst, as to whether the extinctive prescription has expired, B.

arrow