logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나39289
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The fact that the plaintiff set the repayment period of KRW 37 million to the defendant on November 21, 2003 on November 21, 2003 and lent it to the defendant on November 21, 2006 is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant is obligated to repay the loan of this case KRW 37 million to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's assertion that the loans of this case were extinguished upon the lapse of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period.

B. Relevant legal principles include not only a claim arising from an act of commercial activity but also a commercial claim subject to the period of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act. 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 ancillary commercial activity that a merchant performs for his/her business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da87294, Jan. 28, 2010; 98Da23195, May 12, 2000). Meanwhile, Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "a merchant's act on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed to be an act on behalf of his/her business," and Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of a merchant shall be presumed to be an act on behalf of his/her business." Thus, in order to presume that a merchant's act not on behalf of business is performed on behalf of the business and to reverse such presumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da82766 Decided April 9, 2009, etc.). C.

Judgment

At the time that the Plaintiff lent KRW 37 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was operating a set of accounts in Ansan-si Member D, with the trade name “C”. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the Plaintiff, a merchant operating a set of accounts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, lending money to the Defendant.

arrow