beta
Text
1. A deed that the defendant's notary public against the plaintiffs prepared on March 19, 2004 by the law firm Nam-nam General Law Office.
Reasons
1. On March 19, 2004, Plaintiff A prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 35 million (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) with the Defendant on a yearly basis, 36% of interest per annum, and on March 19, 2005, the due date for payment was determined and borrowed as the joint guarantor of the notarial deed of this case. Plaintiff B signed and sealed the notarial deed of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the Defendant paid the instant loan to the Plaintiff as a prepaid payment, and thus, the Defendant cannot seek the return of illegal consideration. Even if it is not so, since the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claims has expired, the Defendant is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed. 2) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not run a commercial sex business establishment, and the amount loaned to the Plaintiff A was not in the name of prepaid payment.
In addition, since the claim of this case is not a commercial claim, the extinctive prescription period of ten years has not yet expired.
B. 1) Determination 1) The written statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10 (including the number of pages) alone are insufficient to find that the defendant operated a commercial entertainment business establishment and actually paid the loan in advance to the plaintiff. There is no other evidence to find otherwise. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is rejected. 2) The defendant is a person who lent the loan in this case to the plaintiff Gap as a credit service provider. Thus, since the loan in this case is a claim for commercial activity and its extinctive prescription is five years since the loan in this case is a claim for commercial activity. The repayment period of the loan in this case is March 19, 2005.