beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination
A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the determination of the cause of the claim, and the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff entered the cash custody certificate (Evidence No. 1) on February 1, 2011 as " February 1, 2010." However, there is no dispute between the parties in the clerical error of " February 1, 201."
C It is recognized that a loan of KRW 60 million is made to C on April 1, 201, with a maturity of KRW 30 million specified as the interest rate of 3%, and that the receipt of cash custody certificates is made, that the borrower of the said cash custody certificate was signed by the Defendant in the column of the guarantor, that on the same day, the Plaintiff loaned the said money by means of remitting KRW 50 million to the Co., Ltd. on the same day.
According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant guaranteed C's above loan obligation against the plaintiff, and barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay deposit amount of KRW 60 million to the plaintiff.
B. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant set up a defense that the plaintiff's above claim expired by prescription.
A person who prepares for business prior to commencement of a commercial activity which is the subject of business is realizing an intention to engage in a commercial activity. As such, he/she obtains the eligibility as a merchant when he/she engages in such preparation, and as well as his/her first ancillary commercial activity is an act for business purposes.
Meanwhile, the act cannot be deemed as an act of preparing a commercial activity, which is a business object, in view of the nature of the act, such as the act of borrowing business funds. However, in a case where a subjective intent of an actor was a preparatory act for business and the other party was aware that such an act was a preparatory act for business, based on the explanation of the actor, etc., the provisions of the Commercial Act concerning commercial activities apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da47388, Nov. 15, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no dispute over the instant case, the testimony