1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 56,582,522 won and 36,339,775 won among them, from February 13, 2019 to the day of full payment.

The Defendant, upon entering into a loan transaction agreement with C and doing loan transactions, was liable for the debt of KRW 36,339,775 while engaging in loan transactions; C with D Co., Ltd.; D Co., Ltd.; and D Co., Ltd. with E Co., Ltd.; and E Co., Ltd. entered into an asset acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff on the acquisition of the principal and interest of the above loan and all rights incidental to the above loan; as of February 12, 2019, the total balance including the principal and interest, etc. of the Defendant’s above loan obligation as of February 12, 2019 is KRW 56,582,52; and the balance of the loan principal is 36,39,775. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties or the entire purport

In accordance with the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the above loan to the plaintiff as the transferee of the claim, and the ground for the claim in this case is with merit.

In this regard, the defendant defenses that the above loans have expired by prescription.

On the other hand, the plaintiff re-fights against the defendant's aforementioned defense.

In accordance with the evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the judgment of commencement of auction on July 5, 201 can be acknowledged that the real estate owned by the defendant was filed for auction on July 1, 201 with the Suwon District Court SupportF for Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court, and the purport thereof was recorded in the register, and the above voluntary auction procedure was made on October 15, 201.

In accordance with the above recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the distribution schedule of the above voluntary auction case became final and conclusive at the time of the above distribution date, so the cause for interruption of extinctive prescription has occurred until then, and the lawsuit of this case, which is apparent that it was filed within five years thereafter, shall be deemed to have been filed before the expiration of extinctive prescription.

The plaintiff's re-appeal to the interruption of extinctive prescription is reasonable, and the defendant's above defense is not reasonable.

Therefore, the plaintiff.