beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not substantially different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the purport of the whole pleadings is examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable.
(The plaintiff did not provide specific proof as to the relation between G and the defendant. Ultimately, the court's explanation about this case is based on the second judgment of the court of first instance.
This part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same except for the dismissal as follows.
[Completioned Parts]
B. We examine the judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, and all of the loan claims of this case claimed by the plaintiff were leased without fixing the time of return. In this case, the lender may claim for the return at any time (Article 603 (2) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the plaintiff was a merchant operating the "E" at the time of the loan of this case, and the act of the merchant was presumed to be for business (Article 47 (2) of the Commercial Act). Thus, the plaintiff's loan claims constitute a commercial bond to which the five-year extinctive prescription applies (Article 47 (2) of the Commercial Act since the plaintiff was a student loan or a pre-tax loan, it is argued that the ten-year extinctive prescription prescription period is ten years, but there is no evidence to prove that the ten-year extinctive prescription period is applied, and even if the ten-year prescription period is applied, it does not affect the conclusion that the extinctive prescription period has expired since all of the loans lent around 2005).
It is evident that it was filed on December 16, 2016, five years after the lapse of such five years.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim has already been extinctive prescription before the instant lawsuit was filed.