beta
Text
Plaintiff
All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case, except for further determination as to the newly asserted part while filing an appeal by the plaintiff, and thus, citing this as it is pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise alleged in paragraph (2). The fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate).
A. The gist of the argument is unreasonable to regard all the Plaintiff’s loan as a commercial activity, and it is deemed that only the loan to obtain interest income is a commercial activity. As such, 35,030,000 won lent between March 30, 207 and December 31, 2010 as interest free, the extinctive prescription has not yet expired since the loan was not a commercial activity.
If the act of lending the above money is considered as a commercial activity, the defendant paid 695,000 won to the plaintiff on December 10, 2013 under the name of the defendant's mother and partly repaid the above money. As such, the extinctive prescription of the loan claim was interrupted as the approval of the debt.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above amount of money and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. Determination as follows: (a) a merchant who engages in a commercial activity under his/her own name is a merchant (Article 4 of the Commercial Act); (b) a commercial activity is a commercial activity as provided in any subparagraph of Article 46 for a business purpose (Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act) or a merchant’s act for a business purpose (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act); (c) a merchant’s act is presumed to have been conducted for a business purpose (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act); and (d) there is no ground to regard it as a commercial activity only for a lending for a profit-making purpose as alleged by the Plaintiff; and (e) there is no other evidence to reverse the presumption as to KRW 35,030,000 lent between March 30, 207 and December 31, 2010.
Therefore, it is true.