beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff made a loan to D on August 10, 2006 at the interest rate of KRW 15 million per annum and on July 9, 2007. Since the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to D, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 15 million and its interest.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's guaranteed claim constitutes commercial claim to which the period of extinctive prescription of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies, and thus has already expired due to the expiration of extinctive
2. A claim arising from an act of a commercial activity involving both parties as well as a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity is subject to the extinctive prescription period of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such a 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 merchants for business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da23195, May 12, 2000). Under Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act, a merchant’s act is presumed to be carried on for business purposes.
According to the overall purport of Gap 1 and Eul 1's statements and arguments, the plaintiff was operating an entertainment tavern around 2006, and as the plaintiff was running an entertainment tavern business, the plaintiff paid 25% out of the sales of alcoholic beverages to the defendant, C, and D for the purpose of running it, and employed the defendant, C, and D as an employee of the entertainment tavern's own operation under the condition that he lends 15 million won to D for the purpose of running it, and accordingly, the plaintiff extended the loan to D on August 10, 2006 at an annual interest rate of 20%, and the due date of repayment on July 9, 2007. The plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant and C's obligation to borrow loans to the plaintiff, and the fact that the defendant, C, and D worked in the plaintiff's entertainment tavern around that time.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff's act of receiving joint and several sureties from the defendant is the merchant's business.