beta
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. Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence No. 1 and witness C of the first instance trial as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned 20 million won to the defendant on April 15, 2008 without fixing the due date for payment. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 20 million and delay damages, barring special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s claim on the Plaintiff’s above loan was extinguished upon the completion of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription.
B. 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 on behalf of his/her business," it is presumed that the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business is conducted on behalf of his/her business and that the act of the merchant on behalf of his/her own
However, even if a merchant who does not engage in a business of lending money, there may be cases where he/she lends money for business interest or for business interest, or where he/she lends money for the purpose of acquiring interest, and thus, he/she is presumed to do so for business without any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54378, Dec. 11, 2008).
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by the witness C of the first instance trial, the plaintiff was acknowledged to have lent money as described in paragraph (1) in the course of employing the defendant who worked in another company while operating the furniture store in the family complex located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as "E". Thus, the plaintiff who is the merchant of the household store business has employed the defendant.