1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Fact 1) On May 16, 2005, Samsung Mutual Savings Bank entered into a credit transaction agreement with the defendant at an interest rate of KRW 14.6% per annum, interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 26.8% per annum, and due date of payment on November 16, 2007, and paid KRW 19,000,000 to the defendant on the same day. 2) The above loan obligations were overdue after June 17, 2005, and the remaining loan obligations as of December 16, 2009 are the total amount of KRW 18,954,004, and the remaining loan obligations are the total amount of KRW 12,020,00.

3) Meanwhile, on June 24, 2011, Samsung Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 201Hau72, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 18,954,004 won in total with interest on the loan and 12,020,000 won in interest rate of 26.8% per annum from December 17, 2009, the following day of the above basic date to the date of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense of the extinctive prescription against the defendant is a defense that the plaintiff's loan claim expired, so the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply to the plaintiff's loan claim. The fact that the payment period of the above loan claim was November 16, 2007 is the same as mentioned above, and it is apparent in the record that the plaintiff's application for the payment order was filed on May 31, 2013, where five years have passed since the above loan claim expired. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim is already completed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which differs from this conclusion, is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.