2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On November 9, 1996, the Defendant borrowed KRW 2.1 million from the Peace Bank (Seoul Bank: hereinafter “instant loan claim”) (hereinafter “instant loan claim”), and thereafter, the instant loan claim was finally transferred to the Plaintiff on June 15, 201 through the Korea Finance Primary Asset Securitization Specialized Company, and the Korea Mutual Savings Bank Promotion Co., Ltd., and the notification procedure was also conducted by the said transferor.

3) As of February 27, 2016, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims against the Defendant as of February 27, 2016 constituted KRW 29,024,922 (i.e., principal and interest of KRW 6,392,05, and KRW 22,632,917.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as transferee 29,024,922 won as well as damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum for the plaintiff within the agreed rate of 15% as to the principal of 6,392,005 won.

B. The Defendant’s assertion not only cannot find out the grounds for the claim amount asserted by the Plaintiff, but also the instant loan claim was already extinguished due to the completion of prescription.

2. Determination:

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant was given a loan of KRW 2,10,000 from Hanil Bank Co., Ltd. on November 9, 1996 by determining the redemption date as "No. 9, 1999."

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claims ought to run from the date of repayment. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only on March 31, 2016, which was five years after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period from the Plaintiff, and no evidence or circumstance exists to deem that the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to any other reason.

C. Therefore, the instant loan claim expired after the completion of the statute of limitations.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.