beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. On April 20, 2005, the Plaintiff leased 300 million won to P&L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P&L”) under the Defendant’s joint and several sureties on April 20, 2005, with the interest rate of 24% per annum, and the due date for repayment as of December 31, 2009.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s loan claim is a commercial claim, which is the Plaintiff’s commercial claim, and that the prescription period has expired five years after the lapse of the commercial prescription period from December 31, 2009.
A claim arising from an act of both parties’ commercial activity as well as a claim arising from an act of both parties’ commercial activity constitutes a commercial claim subject to the period of five years extinctive prescription as prescribed by Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such 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 performed by a merchant for his/her business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da10793, Oct. 10, 1998). However, even if the Plaintiff’s claim is asserted, it constitutes a commercial activity in which P&P, a stock company deemed a merchant under Article 5(2) of the Commercial Act, borrows funds from the Plaintiff, thereby constituting a borrowing of funds from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a commercial claim subject
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on the loan against L&Wn is extinguished after the lapse of the commercial prescription period from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2014, and the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligations are also extinguished depending on the nature of the subsidiary. Therefore, the Defendant’s objection to the same purport is without merit as the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable.
B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff actually lent the funds of this case to the Defendant, who is not a merchant, and thus, the Defendant, who is a real borrower, has been urged to pay the loans of this case, is not a commercial claim, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription also exists.