A. New chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “new chemical”) had a claim for loans of KRW 75,00,000 against the Defendant.

B. Around October 26, 2007, a new chemical transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims with a certificate with a fixed date on December 4, 2007.

The above assignment notification reached the defendant at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 75,00,000,000, and 5% per annum from December 4, 2007 to April 14, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the claim on the extinction of prescription, the Defendant asserts that since the claim for the price of goods of a new chemical occurred due to the transaction of goods in around 2001, the extinctive prescription has already been completed around October 16, 2007, which is the time of the assignment of claims, and that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2014, and even if the starting point is deemed as the starting point of October 16, 2007, which is the time of the assignment of claims, the extinctive prescription has expired.

In full view of the facts stated in evidence Nos. 4 and 5, a new chemical filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 75,00,000 against the defendant on May 13, 2004 and sentenced to the judgment on October 28 of the same year that "the defendant shall pay KRW 75,00,000 to a new chemical." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the lawsuit in this case was filed on April 3, 2014 before ten years have passed from that time. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the plaintiff's claim for the acquisition amount was suspended and has not yet been completed. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of immunity, the defendant has received a decision of immunity.