2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 14, 2002, the Defendant: (a) on March 14, 2002, determined the interest rate of KRW 3 million from EAW EAC; (b) 98.5% on March 14, 2007; (c) 127.75% on delay damages; and (d) on March 14, 2002, determined the interest rate of KRW 4 million from EAWS Co., Ltd. as KRW 98.5% on March 14, 2002; (c) on March 14, 2007, at interest rate of KRW 127.75% on delay damages; and (d) received each of the above loans (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant loans”).

B. Each of the instant loans was transferred in succession to YAP Co., Ltd., and P&P Co., Ltd., on June 10, 2014, and was transferred from P&P global loans to the Defendant. At each time, each of the instant loans was duly transferred to the Defendant.

C. As of August 2, 2017, each of the instant loans remains in total of KRW 41,368,848 (applicable interest rate of 39%) and interest for arrears of KRW 41,368,848 (applicable interest rate of 39%).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum to the plaintiff within the scope of interest rate of delay from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment as requested by the plaintiff as to the final transferee of each of the loans of this case and the principal amount of KRW 48,368,848, and the principal amount of KRW 7,00,000 among them.

3. The defendant's defense has already expired since the five-year period of extinctive prescription of each of the loans of this case has expired.

First, as to the starting point of the statute of limitations for each of the loans of this case, the defendant argued that March 15, 2002, which is the starting point of the time of loss of the benefit of time for each of the loans of this case, is the starting point. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of loss

Therefore, the starting point of each of the loans in this case is the starting point.