2. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

A. On June 13, 2003, the Defendant entered into a card loan agreement with the Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. with the amount of KRW 1,431,895, and received the above amount on the same day (hereinafter “the instant claim”), and thereafter became a bad credit holder, and lost the benefit of time for the instant claim around December 31, 2003.

B. On December 29, 2006, Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. transferred the instant claim to Korea Social Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim on August 6, 2009.

On November 1, 2010, the Korea Mutual Loan Co., Ltd. transferred the instant claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on October 6, 201;

On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and at that time notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim.

C. The instant claim is KRW 4,124,427 in total, KRW 1,431,895 in principal as of October 19, 201, KRW 2,692,532 in overdue interests.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor the claim of this case and damages for delay on the principal of the claim.

B. The defendant's defense as to the defendant's assertion is that the claim of this case was extinguished by prescription.

In light of the above evidence, the claim in this case was a commercial claim with the extinctive prescription period of five years, and the claim in this case can be recognized as having been due because it lost the benefit of time around December 31, 2003, and the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the complaint in this case on October 29, 201, which was five years after the filing of the suit in this case, is apparent in the record. Thus, the claim in this case had already expired prior to the filing of the suit in this case.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.