2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

A. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the non-joint credit cooperatives set the due date for repayment on Dec. 5, 1997 and extended KRW 10 million to the defendant on Feb. 28, 199 (hereinafter "the instant loan claim").

(2) On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant loan claim after acquiring the instant loan claim from a non-joint credit cooperatives; (b) and (c) acknowledged the fact that the principal and interest of the instant loan claim up to December 2, 2013 is KRW 20,728,211 (i.e., the principal and interest of KRW 10,000,728,211) (i.e., overdue interest of KRW 10,728,211). Therefore, barring any other special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the instant loan claim and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s defense of the extinctive prescription is a defense that the instant loan claim expired by the extinctive prescription. As seen earlier, the facts that the period of repayment of the instant loan claim was February 28, 1999 are the same, and the five-year commercial extinctive prescription is applicable to the instant loan claim. However, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2013, which was five years after the lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff. As such, the instant loan claim had already expired by the extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the above defense is justified.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.