logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.27 2015가단1632
매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant, on November 25, 2002, entered into a sales contract stating that "A shall transfer a private teaching institute in Seo-gu, Daejeon to the defendant in the amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant borrowed KRW 32 million from the plaintiff in order to take over the FSC. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 32 million and delay damages, barring any special circumstance.

2. As to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription, not only a claim arising from an act of a commercial activity against both parties, but also a claim arising from an act of a commercial activity that constitutes only one of the parties constitutes commercial claims to which the period of extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies. 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 the ancillary commercial activity carried on by a merchant for business purposes. A merchant’s act for business purposes is presumed to be considered as a commercial activity, but also an act of the merchant’s act for business purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6760, 6777, Sept. 24, 2002). As such, the Defendant’s act of borrowing money from the Plaintiff for the payment of the price of the private teaching institute’s acquisition by transfer from the Plaintiff is an act of a commercial activity for business purposes, the Defendant’s obligation to borrow money from the Plaintiff applies five-year commercial

Therefore, the debt of the above borrowed money is extinctive prescription from February 1, 2003 on the day following the due date.

arrow