1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 6, 2001, the Defendant entered into a contract to join the credit card holders with Choung Bank Co., Ltd., and the credit card use price claim against the Defendant of Choung Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant claim”) is the principal amount of KRW 3,582,124, interest of KRW 11,13,847.

On November 13, 2003, Choung Bank Co., Ltd. transferred the instant claim against the Defendant to a mutual savings bank promoting mutual savings banks, to a promotion mutual savings bank Co., Ltd. on June 15, 201, to a Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd. on September 28, 2012, to a mentortool Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and to the

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the number with each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Defendant is obligated to pay the sum of the principal and interest of the instant bonds to the Plaintiff, who is the final transferee of the instant bonds, as well as damages for delay on the principal of the bonds, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant's defense that the claim of this case was extinguished upon the expiration of extinctive prescription.

In light of the practice of transfer of non-performing loans between financial institutions and transfer of non-performing loans to other financial institutions whose maturity date has yet to expire, barring special circumstances, it is extremely exceptional to transfer them to the other financial institutions. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the claim in this case has come due on November 13, 2003, when it comes to the expiration of the maturity date.

The above claim is a commercial claim and the five-year extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Since it is apparent in the record that the application for the instant payment order was filed on April 14, 2017 after the five-year period from the above payment period expired, the claim in this case had already expired prior to the application for the instant payment order.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion.