beta
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. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the interest of KRW 130 million per month on May 3, 2007 under the pretext of investment in the purchase of apartment houses in Chuncheon City to C and C Co., Ltd., a representative of the defendant on May 3, 2007, and lent KRW 130 million to 5% per month, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the above loan obligation.
According to the above facts of recognition, in principle, the defendant is obliged to pay the above loan amount of KRW 130 million to the plaintiff, interest and delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription
A. The defendant asserts that the five-year extinctive prescription is applied to the above loan debt and the extinctive prescription is completed.
B. The term of extinctive prescription of 5 years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to a claim arising from an act of commercial activity for both parties as well as a claim arising from an act of commercial activity for both parties. The commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activity conducted by merchants for their own business (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7863 Decided May 27, 2005). The following circumstances, which are considered as a whole, comprehensively taking into account each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, C and D, the principal debtor of the above borrowed money, are companies with real estate brokerage, competitive sale, and real estate consulting for the principal business purpose of the above company. The Plaintiff loaned the above money to the above company for the purpose of using the real estate investment loan for the principal business purpose of the above company, and the Plaintiff appears to be the repayment period of the above loan between the above company and the above company around June 27, 2007.