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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The defendant, on March 6, 2007, entered only the name of the company C and omitted the "stock company".

(2) On January 12, 2011, C concluded a monetary loan agreement with a limit of KRW 5,00,000, the first loan amount of KRW 3,000,000, interest rate of KRW 65.7% per annum, and overdue interest rate of KRW 65.7% per annum, and did not pay the principal and interest of loan. However, C transferred its claim for the principal and interest of loan amount of KRW 2,804,740, and delayed interest rate of KRW 65.7% per annum, and D again transferred its claim to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2017, and thereafter notified the Defendant of each credit transfer.

3) The above claim for the principal and interest of loan was in arrears of KRW 18,791,814 by adding the interest rate of KRW 2,804,740 as of February 26, 2019 to the principal and interest of KRW 18,791,814.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 18,791,814 and the principal amount of KRW 2,804,740, which is the following day of the above base date, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 48.545% per annum for delay calculated by the Plaintiff within the scope of the agreed overdue interest rate from February 27, 2019 to the date of full payment.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. The Defendant asserted that the above loan claim has expired, but C applied for a payment order on March 25, 2009 by the Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea18067 with respect to the above loan claim before the above transfer of claim, and the payment order was finalized on March 25, 2009. The Plaintiff’s payment order of this case was filed on February 27, 2019 before ten years elapse from the date when the above payment order became final and conclusive, which was obvious or clearly recorded in this court. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations expired is groundless.

B. Meanwhile, the defendant alleged that he did not receive the notification at the time of the assignment of each of the above claims. However, the defendant's evidence Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.