1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendant was granted a loan of 6.4 million won from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation on July 23, 2003 at the end of the lending period on July 23, 2005; the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred the above loan claims to the plaintiff on March 23, 2005 through an asset transfer agreement; the notification of assignment of claims was sent on April 22, 2005; the principal and interest of the above loan claims as of February 16, 2014 can be recognized as constituting 18,90,262; and the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from February 17, 2014 to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's defense is a defense that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim is applied to five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, the fact that the repayment date of the above loan claim was July 23, 2005 is the same, and the fact that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on February 18, 2014 after five years have passed since the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case is apparent in the record. Thus, since the above loan claim of this case was already completed before the application for the payment order of this case, the defendant'

On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff resisted that the Defendant applied for credit recovery support to the Credit Counseling and Recovery Service for the above loan debt and gave up the prescription benefit. Accordingly, according to each of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Defendant applied for credit recovery support to the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission on February 27, 2017, and presented the debt settlement proposal. However, the Defendant appears to have known the existence of the debt against the Plaintiff, a creditor.