2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 20,000,000 as loans with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da319923 and damages for delay.

(hereinafter “Prior Case”). (b)

In the above case, the defendant sent litigation documents, such as a duplicate of complaint, guide of lawsuit, notification of date for pleading, etc. to the defendant's domicile, but the above court ordered the defendant to serve by public notice in accordance with Article 194 of the Civil Procedure Act on February 15, 2007.

C. Since then, on March 2, 2007, the above court rendered a ruling that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from March 3, 2007 to March 16, 2007 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above court served the original copy of the ruling by public notice to the defendant, and on March 28, 2007, the service became effective.

The above judgment was finalized on April 11, 2007.

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment of this case”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20,000,000 won loans and 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from March 3, 2007 to March 16, 2007; 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum as prescribed by the above Act from the next day to the day of full payment (Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). Thus, since the amendment of the "Provisions on statutory interest rate of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings" was made, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed; and there is a benefit in the lawsuit of this case brought to extend the prescription period due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

3. The defendant.