1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, around September 2002, used machinery from the Mag Capital Co., Ltd. to lease it.

Around October 2003, the bankrupt future savings bank organized the business, and the bankrupt future savings bank acquired the claim, such as lease fees, against the plaintiff from the Mag Capital Co., Ltd., and the claim that the bankrupt future savings bank acquired by the bankrupt future savings bank was extinguished after the lapse of ten years from October 2003 when the plaintiff paid the last lease fees.

In regard to this, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for lease fee claim against the Seoul Western District Court 2006Gahap4168, Seoul Western District Court 2006Gahap4168, and the progress of extinctive prescription against the plaintiff was suspended, and ten years have not elapsed from November 28, 2006, which became final and conclusive after a favorable judgment was rendered, and the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

It is apparent that the stop and stophers passed from 2003 to 10 years.

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and all pleadings, the Co., Ltd. shall file a lawsuit against the plaintiff on November 6, 2006, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff, which was rendered by the Seoul Western District Court 2006Gahap4168, and rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on Nov. 6, 2006 that "the plaintiff of this case shall pay to the Mad Capital Co., Ltd. the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from February 1, 2006 to the day of full payment." The defendant's claim against the plaintiff that the defendant acquired against the plaintiff from the Mad Capital Co., Ltd. shall be deemed to have taken over the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff. The extinctive prescription of the defendant's claim against the Mad Capital Co., Ltd. shall have been interrupted due to the interruption of the prescription period, and the prescription period of ten years has not yet expired.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.