1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 244,083,647 and KRW 34,512,290 among them, from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

The evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2 can be acknowledged as facts in the separate sheet in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings (However, "creditors" shall be deemed "Plaintiffs" and "debtors" shall be deemed to be "Defendants") and there is no counter-proof, and the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff 24,083,647 won and 34,512,290 won per annum from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, 20,00 won per annum from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, 19% per annum from November 1, 201 to the date of full payment, 596,00 won per annum 28% per annum from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant defense that the above obligation was extinguished by prescription. However, considering the purport of the whole argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant on May 17, 2004 against the defendant for the claim for the amount of transfer money (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35583 Decided March 17, 2005) and it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 5, 2005, and 10 years thereafter (the defendant asserted that the above loan claim is a commercial claim, and the statute of limitations is five years, however, according to Article 165 (1) of the Civil Act, the claim established by the judgment is limited to the short-term extinctive prescription period even if it falls under the short-term extinctive prescription period). The fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on Nov. 7, 2014, which is obvious that the above statute of limitations has been interrupted, and there is no reason for the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.