1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,375,912 and KRW 10,339,076 among them shall be from August 1, 2016 to October 17, 2016.

1. In light of the overall purport of the arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter the "Agricultural Cooperative Federation") provides the defendant with loans of KRW 50 million with the interest rate of KRW 9.25% per annum on April 29, 2003; KRW 10 million per annum; ② interest rate of November 29, 2002 at interest rate of KRW 6.75% per annum; interest rate of KRW 15% per annum; and interest rate of KRW 150 million per annum; the principal and interest of KRW 30,00 per annum; the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred each of the above loans to the plaintiff on March 31, 2010; the assignment of claims; the Plaintiff notified the repayment of claims; the principal and interest of KRW 3081; the principal and interest of the loans extended to the plaintiff on July 31, 2016; and the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 30681; the principal and interest of the loans extended to the plaintiff.

2. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the defendant defense that the above loans have expired, and the plaintiff re-claimed that the period of extinctive prescription has expired by the judgment. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence above, the NACF filed a lawsuit against the defendant on May 25, 2006 against the defendant on July 20, 2006, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the above loans by the Daegu District Court 2006Da75716, and received the plaintiff's winning judgment (non-litigation). The judgment can be acknowledged to have become final and conclusive on August 29, 2006. Accordingly, the first extinctive prescription was interrupted, and further, the first judgment was interrupted, and it is obvious that the defendant filed an application for the payment order on August 9, 2016, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the above judgment, and thus, the second judgment was interrupted.

As such, the plaintiff's re-appeal has a reason.