A. On April 6, 2005, a National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”) entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant on a set of a loan amount of KRW 30,000,000,000 and a one-year period of loan, and lent KRW 30,000 to the Defendant.

B. The loan term of the instant loan agreement was extended, and the Defendant entered into an additional agreement between the National Bank and the National Bank on April 1, 2009 to extend the term of the instant loan agreement by April 6, 2010.

However, the Defendant did not perform its duty of repayment under the instant loan agreement.

C. A national bank transferred a claim under the instant loan agreement against the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the transfer by the national bank and notified the Defendant of the transfer.

As of February 13, 2015, the principal and interest of the loan based on the loan agreement of this case as of February 13, 2015 shall be 30,00,000, interest 25,845,792, total of 5,845,792, and interest rate for delay shall be 17% per annum.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loan according to the loan agreement of this case to the plaintiff as the assignee, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts that the claim under the instant loan agreement has expired by the lapse of five years.

Extinctive prescription shall commence from time when a right may be exercised and shall be interrupted upon request.

The term of validity of the loan agreement of this case is identical to the facts found in the above facts. As such, the statute of limitations is underway since the claim under the loan agreement of this case can be exercised from April 7, 2010, and the lawsuit of this case is clearly filed on February 17, 2015. Thus, it cannot be said that the statute of limitations has expired since the five-year statute of limitations has not elapsed.

Therefore, the defendant.