beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against the Defendant shall also acquire bonds (No. 547) in 2012.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a merchant who operated a general restaurant in the trade name of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (Ground 1st floor) from October 29, 2010.
B. On November 21, 201, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the Defendant, and issued a copy of the above E-cafeteria lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, and the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate to the Defendant. On November 21, 2012, a notary public borrowed KRW 8 million from the Defendant on November 21, 201, the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant on November 201, 201, and paid the same until March 201, and the interest shall be paid at 2.5% of the monthly end of December, 2011, and a notary public drafted and issued a notarial deed under the Monetary Loan Agreement (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant is a person who received a total of KRW 4,050,000 from the Plaintiff during the period from November 24, 2011 to July 2, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the Defendant lent money to the market merchants and deposited the principal and interest in the way of the number of days, the Plaintiff is a bond business operator, and the Plaintiff paid all of the borrowed money on the Notarial Deed to the Defendant, which was the Plaintiff’s place of business, in cash, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation against the Defendant.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the remainder of the money that the defendant has received was paid, and therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. The plaintiff in the place of extinctive prescription borrowed money from the defendant to use the money for opening a restaurant in the nearest place while running the above restaurant. The plaintiff's obligation is a commercial obligation. The five-year commercial extinctive prescription period as of the time of filing the lawsuit in this case is the time of filing the lawsuit in question.