1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, while engaging in the intermediate wholesale business with the trade name of “C”, supplied goods, such as vegetables, which the Defendant operated from around 2003 to 2008, to D, and the Defendant promised to pay 22 million won for the amount of goods unpaid until June 30, 2009 when trading the trade name of “E” with “D” and then trading the goods with “in that period,” the trade name was changed to the Plaintiff. In doing so, the Plaintiff prepared a separate loan certificate of 18 million won and 6 million won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with the money borrowed based on the above loan certificate or with the money borrowed from the goods and delay damages.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have traded goods with the Plaintiff or prepared a loan certificate to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant has a debt against the Plaintiff on domestic affairs.

Even if the loan certificate is due, the three-year statute of limitations under Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code was set from June 30, 2009.

2. Determination

A. The evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-3 cannot be used as evidence for the reason that there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence, and each statement of Nos. 2 through 4 is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Even if the Plaintiff’s domestic affairs received a loan certificate from the Defendant as alleged, there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are merchants. The act of the merchant is presumed to be for business, and the act of the merchant is a commercial activity conducted by the merchant for business purposes (Article 47 of the Commercial Act). Thus, barring special circumstances, the extinctive prescription for a claim based on the above loan certificate is applicable to a claim arising from a commercial activity, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription has lapsed from June 30, 2009, which is the due date prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable in view of this point.