beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 35 million to D (hereinafter “instant loan”) the operating fund of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) that is engaged in food wholesale business as a business (hereinafter “D”), and at the time, D’s representative director was the Defendant C.
B. D used the instant loan as employee benefits or the price of goods by the customer.
C. The Plaintiff, as to whether D is unable to repay the instant loan due to bankruptcy, urged the Defendants to repay the said loan debt. Accordingly, the Defendants prepared a written confirmation of loan (hereinafter “written confirmation of loan”) on June 24, 2012 and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim and the details of the preparation of the instant letter of loan and the relevant legal doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da36228, Sept. 24, 2002; 201Da76099, Jan. 12, 2012), the Defendants were deemed to have acquired the instant loan obligations overlappingly. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan obligations, barring any special circumstance.
B. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations claim by the Defendants had expired five years of extinctive prescription as commercial obligations.
In light of the relevant legal principles (Supreme Court Decision 9Da12376 delivered on July 9, 199), the instant loan obligation is a commercial obligation. Since the said loan obligation, which is an obligation to acquire, was an obligation subject to the Commercial Prescription of the original five years, and thus, even if the Defendants were to be in the position to repay the above loan obligation in accordance with the overlapping assumption of obligation, the period of extinctive prescription is still subject to the five-year commercial prescription period.
In this case.