logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.11.21 2013나20950
차용금
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. The plaintiff, on March 21, 2003, lent KRW 45 million to the defendant on June 10, 2003 by the due date for payment on or after the plaintiff set on June 10, 2003, does not have any dispute between the parties. [It is insufficient to recognize that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, the above confession revocation does not have any effect.] The plaintiff has received payment of KRW 10 million from the defendant on June 2003. According to the above recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loans to the plaintiff and delay damages on the remainder of the loans, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim on the completion of the Defendant’s commercial statute of limitations expired after the lapse of the five-year commercial statute of limitations with the price claim for goods.

However, Article 47 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed a commercial activity." Since Article 47 (2) of the same Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be presumed to be an act for his/her business," it is presumed that the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business is carried on for his/her business, and even if the commercial activity of a merchant is not carried on for his/her business, there may be cases where he/she lends money for his/her business interest or for the purpose of acquiring interest because he/she has sufficient business funds, and therefore, such act of lending money by a merchant is presumed to be carried on for his/her business unless there is any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008), and the plaintiff carries on a main material wholesale business or retail business with the trade name

arrow