logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.17 2017나110814
대여금
Text

1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2...

Reasons

In fact, this court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the above facts of the judgment on the grounds of claim as to Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 40,000,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

Defendant B asserts that the above loan claim has expired by the lapse of the commercial statute of limitations.

A claim arising from an act of both parties as a commercial activity as well as a claim arising from an act of both parties which constitutes a commercial activity is 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 subparagraph 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 Decision 93Da54842, Apr. 29, 1994). Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed as a commercial activity.” Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act provides that “the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business” is presumed as “the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business.” Thus, in order to reverse such presumption, whether it is certain whether the merchant is engaged in the business or not, the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378 Decided December 11, 2008, etc.). Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of supplying and managing credit card settlement terminals in the name of D around October 18, 2007, the Plaintiff is a merchant under the Commercial Act, and the Plaintiff, a merchant, lent money to the Defendant B for business purposes.

arrow