beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including serial numbers) as to the cause of the claim, D agreed on June 28, 2006 to lend KRW 3 million to the defendant B and receive KRW 3.6 million, including interest at the rate of KRW 60% per annum until September 25, 2006. The defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation (hereinafter "the loan obligation of this case"), and D transferred the loan obligation of this case to the plaintiff on January 9, 2013. On November 20, 2017, the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of the loan claim of this case to the Plaintiff who acquired the loan of this case except for the remainder of KRW 260,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
2. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations defense by the Defendants had expired five years after the lapse of the statute of limitations for commercial claims, and thus, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 2 and 4, it is recognized that D was running a credit business at the time of the instant lending, and that Defendant B lent KRW 3 million to Defendant B by day.
Therefore, the period of extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act is five years for the instant loan claims arising out of D’s commercial activities, and the fact that the period of repayment of the instant loan claims was September 25, 2006 is as seen earlier. As long as the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on January 3, 2018 after the lapse of five years from the Plaintiff, the instant loan claims already expired.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants met part of the above loan claims on April 16, 2008, and that the statute of limitations runs from that time. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s domestic affairs from April 16, 2008.