2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor.

A. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) granted a loan to the Defendant for a company run a loan, and transferred the loan to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the loan. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay for the total amount of KRW 147,397,673 won as of March 15, 2019 and the principal amount of KRW 81,225,343.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff transferred the claim for the loan that the Plaintiff acquired as above to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2019, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding the Plaintiff for delay damages for the total amount of principal and interest KRW 147,397,673 as of March 15, 2019, and for the principal amount of KRW 81,225,343

C. The five-year commercial extinctive prescription, as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act, of the Defendant’s claim for loans against the Defendant E, has expired.

In addition, the defendant is not notified of the assignment of claims from E.

2. Determination:

A. The fact that E Co., Ltd. lent KRW 215,00,000 to the Defendant on March 11, 2013 is no dispute between the parties.

B. However, as a claim for a loan to the Defendant against the Defendant is based on commercial activities, the period of five-year extinctive prescription expires by Doing.

In full view of the statement in Eul evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire argument, the defendant delayed the repayment of principal and interest on the above loan, and E can be acknowledged as having notified the defendant on September 3, 2013 that the above loan will lose its interest as of September 10, 2013. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the interest on the above loan was lost and its maturity has arrived.

Since the instant lawsuit was filed on April 19, 2019, which was five years after the due date for payment, the said loans were extinguished upon the completion of commercial extinctive prescription.

C. Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.