beta
Text
All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that on November 26, 2010, the plaintiff himself/herself lent KRW 50,000,000 to the food agency business, "if he/she lends 50,000,000 won as business funds, he/she will pay 7,50,000 won as interest every month, and will pay it with his/her request on June 26, 201," the defendant asserts that he/she is liable for the payment of the above money, since he/she received a promissory note endorsed by the defendant B for the purpose of security, and lent 50,000,000 won to the defendants for the purpose of security, and the defendants asserted that he/she extinguished the prescription period with commercial bonds.
2. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendants for business funds.
However, claims arising from not only commercial activities but also commercial claims that fall under commercial activities are applicable only to one of the parties, and such commercial activities include not only the basic commercial activities falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activities performed by merchants for business purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da100098, Mar. 11, 2010). The plaintiff is a person who has lent money to the defendants for the purpose of operating food agencies, and a promissory note with Gap evidence No. 1 is also issued in the name of the Dispute Resolution D, which is a business company, and the plaintiff's loans are subject to the five-year commercial prescription period.
Although the Plaintiff asserted that interest was paid from the Defendants for two years, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 24, 2020, which was five years thereafter, is apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above loan claim has already expired.
Therefore, the defendants' defense pointing this out is justified.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.