A. On March 7, 2005, the Defendant borrowed 100,000,000 won from the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. at the interest rate of 21% per annum.

(hereinafter “Claims for loans of this case”). (b)

On June 29, 2006, a limited liability company specialized in the K-lurlurt Securitization received the claim for the loan of this case from the National Bank of Korea, and applied for a payment order against the defendant as the Incheon District Court 2008 tea1673, and around January 29, 2008, the payment order was issued with the content that "the defendant would pay the defendant 120,322,824 won to the limited liability company specialized in the K-lurlurt Securitization and 83,437,353 won with 21% interest per annum from January 9, 2008 to the date of complete payment," and the above payment order was finalized on February 19, 2008.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). C.

Since then, on November 26, 2009, the instant loans were transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff around March 31, 2015, a limited liability company specialized in the Real Estate Primary Asset-backed Securitization, and the Plaintiff on March 31, 2015.

As of December 26, 2017, the loan of this case remains at KRW 134,322,709 ( principal KRW 83,437,353 interest at KRW 50,885,356). The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the purpose of extending the prescription period for the payment order of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the transferee of the instant loan, the principal and interest of KRW 134,32,709 and delay damages calculated at the rate of 21% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of KRW 83,437,353, among the principal and interest, from December 27, 2017 to the date of full payment.

3. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant's defense that the statute of limitations has expired since 5 years from March 7, 2005, the loan claim of this case, which was the date of loan.

A claim established by the same effect as a judgment shall be limited to the short-term extinctive prescription.