1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact of recognition (1) On June 19, 1998, the Daedong Mutual Savings and Finance Company, Inc. lent KRW 7,000,000 to the Defendant on June 19, 200 on the repayment date and KRW 30% per annum, and B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to repay the borrowed amount.

(2) On May 10, 200, Korea Mutual Savings Bank merged with Taedong Mutual Savings Bank on the part of Korea on the part of May 10, 2000, the above loan claims against the Defendant were transferred in sequence to Solomon M&C lending Co., Ltd., Yujin Loan Co., Ltd., Yujin Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., mentmenn&A loan

(3) On June 21, 2013, ment Ann&A loan, Inc. transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff. On June 23, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was delegated with the power of notification of assignment of claims from mentmenn&A loan, notified the Defendant of the fact of assignment of claims on June 23, 2014.

(4) As of April 27, 2015, the principal and interest of the foregoing loan claim amounting to KRW 31,795,418 as of April 27, 2015, the sum of the principal and interest of KRW 6,691,786, interest for delay 25,103,632, and the Plaintiff applies 17% per annum with the interest for delay on the loan claim.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 6-2, 3, 4, and Evidence Nos. 8-1 and 8-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 31,795,418 won in total of the above loan claims, and 6,691,786 won in principal, 17% per annum for delay calculated from April 28, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the above calculation base date, to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that ① the actual obligor of the above loan credit is B, ② the above loan credit was repaid at the auction of real estate owned by the defendant around 2000, and ③ the extinctive prescription of the above loan credit has expired.

B. First, we examine the argument ① and ②.

There are special circumstances, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, judgment of winning exceptionally becomes final and conclusive.