1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,00,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from March 26, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2010, Nonparty C determined and lent KRW 2 million to the Defendant as of April 30, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant loan claim”). (b)

C transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims by C, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the transfer by means of content-certified mail with a fixed date date.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 26, 2016 to the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, as a result of the repayment period of KRW 2 million and thereafter.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, even if the Defendant’s written objection for the payment order submitted on March 30, 2016, paid money, the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired even if the written objection for the payment order was given, it would continue to expire. As a defense of the statute of limitations, the Defendant’s assertion that the loan claim in this case occurred due to commercial activities, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the loan claim in this case occurred from the commercial activities. Therefore, the ten-year statute of limitations is applicable

The facts that the repayment period of the instant loan claim was April 30, 2010 are as seen earlier, and the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on February 18, 2016, which was ten years after the lapse of ten years from the Plaintiff, is apparent in the record. As such, the extinctive prescription of the said loan claim was interrupted before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant is the defendant.