2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 16, 1993, the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) borrowed KRW 310,000,000 from the Dosan Mutual Savings and Finance Company around April 16, 1993 as the repayment date and received the loan on April 16, 1998.

B. Around June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the deceased’s loans (hereinafter “the claim of this case”) from mentorora loan, and received delegation of the authority regarding the assignment of claims from mentora loan, and notified the deceased of the transfer of claims on or before December 2013.

C. The Deceased died on February 12, 1995, and the Defendants, their children, and D, E, and F inherited the Deceased.

The claim in this case is the principal of KRW 99,957,701 as of January 6, 2014, and damages for delay are the total of KRW 345,736,916, and the rate of damages for delay determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from January 6, 2014 to the date of full payment. The Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from January 6, 2014 to the date of full payment.

3. As to the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription, the defendants' defenses of this case are defenses that the extinctive prescription has already expired.

However, the facts that the maturity date of the instant claim was April 16, 1998 are as seen earlier, and the facts that the instant claim was filed on January 15, 2014 are apparent in the record. As such, five years have elapsed since April 16, 1998, the maturity period of the instant claim, which was the commercial extinctive prescription period, was expired.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.