beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In addition to the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant and Eul prepared a loan certificate stating that the plaintiff will borrow 148,965,000 won from the plaintiff until May 23, 2007 as material and product cost and will pay it until January 30, 2008. Accordingly, the plaintiff loaned 148,965,000 won to the defendant and Eul. The defendant and Eul agreed that the above loan No. 148,965,000 won will be repaid to the plaintiff on May 6, 2008, but the defendant and Eul prepared a non-performance plan for payment of land and building on the non-payment date as of May 15, 2008 to the plaintiff as of June 5, 2008, the defendant and Eul will make a non-performance of a promissory note No. 1405,000 won to the plaintiff as of May 10, 2008.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 109,948,413 of the principal and interest of KRW 74,482,50 of the above loan up to the time the lawsuit of this case is filed, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case to the day of complete payment, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired by the statute of limitations.
The facts that Defendant and B borrowed the above loans from the Plaintiff on the pretext of material cost and delivery cost of goods at around 2007 are as seen earlier. Thus, this act is an act done by merchants for business purposes and constitutes an auxiliary commercial activity under Article 47 of the Commercial Act, and thus, constitutes a commercial claim governed by the extinctive prescription of the commercial claim under Article 64 of the Commercial Act.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006). However, as seen earlier.