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 on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Defendant’s loan agreement with the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative on November 28, 2003 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) setting the loan amount of KRW 200 million on November 28, 2008, the expiration date of the loan period on November 28, 2008, and the interest rate of KRW 6.5% on a yearly basis (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(2) On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to acquire claims under the instant loan agreement with the Dong Seoul Agricultural Cooperative and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by being delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by the Dong Seoul Agricultural Cooperative.

3) The Defendant’s debt amount as of October 27, 2014 based on the instant loan agreement is KRW 140,400,056 (the amount of debt as of October 27, 2014, KRW 71,50,056 (the amount of debt KRW 71,504,615) and the agreed overdue interest rate is KRW 68,895,441 per annum. The agreed overdue interest rate is 17% per annum. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition,

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 140,400,056 and the amount of KRW 71,504,615, the agreed damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from October 28, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of Defendant’s assertion 1) The substantial party to the loan agreement of this case is a third party, and the Defendant only lent its name. 2) Even if the Defendant is a party to the loan agreement of this case, the period of extinctive prescription is five years as a commercial obligation. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 20, 2006, around October 2014, five years after receiving a partial repayment of the obligation by receiving dividends in the auction of the real estate B, Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation under the loan agreement of this case expired.

B. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant was not responsible for the obligation under the loan agreement of this case by lending only the name of the Defendant.