logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2016나26487
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2001, the Plaintiff was subject to the application of the Framework Agreement on Credit Transactions, and the Defendant lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on October 24, 2003 due date for payment, KRW 14.4% per annum, and delayed interest rate of KRW 19% per annum.

B. The Defendant paid interest to the Plaintiff by June 20, 2002, but did not thereafter pay the interest. On January 28, 2003, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 5,203,203 from the Defendant’s above loans.

C. The principal and interest on the instant loan is KRW 17,691,797 in total as of March 28, 2003 (i.e., remaining principal of the loan, KRW 14,796,797 in damages for delay up to March 28, 2003).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest on the remaining loan and interest on the principal and interest thereon to the plaintiff, unless there are other special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant defense that the plaintiff's loans of this case had expired the five-year prescription period with commercial bonds.

On the other hand, a claim arising from an act of a commercial activity for both parties as well as a claim arising from an act of a commercial activity is also a commercial claim to which the extinctive prescription period of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to only one of the parties. 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 the ancillary commercial activity that a merchant conducts for business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006). Since it is presumed that a merchant's act is conducted for business, barring any special circumstance, the claim of this case arising from a profit-making plaintiff's lending money to the defendant is a commercial claim with a period of five years extinctive prescription period, and from October 24, 2003 agreed upon by the plaintiff and the defendant as the due date for repayment

arrow