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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. At the time of October 24, 2003, the Defendant owed the following credit card loans to the EL branch (hereinafter “EL branch card”) and Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Card”).

A

B. On October 24, 2003, ELD and Hyundai Card transferred each of the above loans against the Defendant to ELD Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELD Investment Securities”), on the same day, ELD Investment Securities transferred each of the above loans to the Plaintiff. Around that time, the notice of assignment of claims was given to the Defendant.

C. On October 11, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment order claiming the payment of the above amount of the debt transferred, and on April 15, 2008, the Ulsan District Court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff: “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 13,292,118, and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to March 28, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” was finalized on May 9, 2008.

(hereinafter the above lawsuit is referred to as “pre-trial,” and the above final judgment is referred to as “final judgment of a pre-trial”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to March 28, 2008, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of judgment claim based on the final judgment of the previous suit.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, prior to the filing of a lawsuit, the extinctive prescription of a loan claim against the Defendant has expired.

However, this case raised by the plaintiff for the extension of the prescription of the claim for the amount of money which has become final and conclusive.