2. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

A. On November 11, 1992, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on May 11, 1995, setting the only date for the loan to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff on June 23, 2014, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims and served the Defendant of the said content certification around that time.

C. As of May 31, 2013, the principal and interest of the instant loan amounted to KRW 49,235,324 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 11,838,190) (i.e., KRW 37,397,134). Of these, the principal amount is KRW 11,838,190.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the result of an order to submit financial transaction information to the new bank by the court of the first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay of KRW 43,227,882 and the principal of the loan principal to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor within the scope of principal and interest of the loan claim in this case, as requested by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor who is the transferee of the claim.

3. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant's claim for the loan of this case had already been extinguished after the statute of limitations expired.

In this case, the claim for the loan of this case is a claim for commercial activities and its extinctive prescription is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, the due date for the claim for the loan of this case was May 11, 1995, and it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on July 1, 2010, which was five years after the lawsuit of this case was filed. Thus, the loan of this case had already expired prior to the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

4. If so, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this.