A. On January 17, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned a loan of KRW 580 million to the Defendant on January 18, 2008 (after this, the maturity is changed to April 17, 2008) and the overdue interest rate of KRW 25 million.

B. As of January 31, 2013, the balance of the principal of the loan as of January 31, 2013 is KRW 128,735,406, and overdue interest is KRW 300,476,729.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 429,212,134 won (128,735,406 won 300,476,729 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from February 1, 2013 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the instant loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations, and as seen earlier, the facts that the period for payment of the above loan claim was April 17, 2008 are as follows. It is obvious that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed five years after the period for the extinctive prescription of the commercial claim.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant established a collective security on January 17, 2007 as to the Plaintiff’s aggregate building Nos. 171 and 901, which is an aggregate building owned by the Defendant, to secure the instant loan claim, and the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on July 4, 2008 (U.S. District Court C) and received dividends of KRW 442,386,843 out of the above loan claim on June 4, 2009; and the Plaintiff applied for a provisional attachment on May 9, 2008, which is prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, with the above loan claim claim, on May 9, 2008, with the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan57429.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and the defendant's above assertion is justified, since the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case is suspended.