beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Around January 26, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,00 to C, which operates the household store around January 26, 2007, and the Defendant provided joint and several sureties with respect to the above loan obligations, as there is no dispute between the parties, or as a result of the appraisal of the stamp image of the appraiser D of the first instance trial, the authenticity of the entire document is recognized as authentic, since the following stamp image of the Defendant’s name is found to be based on the Defendant’s seal. Although the Defendant alleged that the above document was forged, the testimony of the witness C of the party trial alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), 2, and 2-1, 2, and 3-3 of the evidence No. 1, the entire arguments can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, a joint guarantor, has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the above loans of KRW 20,000,000 and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense for the expiration of extinctive prescription
A. The gist of the assertion asserts that the statute of limitations has expired since the above loans were commercial bonds with the lapse of five years from the due date as commercial bonds, and accordingly, the defendant's joint and several liability has expired.
B. The claim arising from an act of commercial activity for both parties as well as the claim arising from an act of commercial activity is also a commercial claim to which the five-year prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies. The 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 that the merchant carries on for business. Thus, if the principal obligor C entered into a loan for consumption on behalf of the merchant as the merchant, the loan claim should be deemed a commercial claim.
However, the principal debtor C is a merchant who operates the furniture, and C as a merchant is the plaintiff.