1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 12, 2002, Defendant (B prior to the opening of name: B) agreed to repay the principal and interest of each month by equally taking out loans with the rate of 19% per annum, interest rate of 24% per annum, interest rate of 24% per annum, and 12 months during the lending period.

(hereinafter “Claims for loans of this case”). (b)

On April 10, 2009, the Plaintiff (former: the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund) transferred the instant loan claims against the Defendant from the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. on April 10, 2009, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the assignment of claims on December 2, 2009 upon delegation of the power to notify the assignment

C. The remaining principal of the loan claim of this case as of September 5, 2016 is KRW 9,500,000, overdue interest and delay damages are KRW 16,236,680.

[Grounds for recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 25,736,680 (i.e., KRW 16,236,680) and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 17% per annum for the Plaintiff from September 6, 2016, which is the day following the date of settlement of accounts, as to the principal amount of KRW 9,50,000 among the claims for the instant loan (= KRW 9,50,000), barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant’s defense that the instant loan claim had already been extinguished due to the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription period is applied pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, since the instant loan claim constitutes a claim arising from commercial activities on the national credit card, and it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on September 12, 2016, which was five years after the expiration of the five-year period from November 12, 2003, the term of validity of the instant loan claim. As such, the instant loan claim had already expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's status is the same.