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. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2005, a monthlycom Co., Ltd. lent KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 34.9% per annum and due date of payment on January 5, 2007 (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Defendant delayed the repayment of principal and interest from April 5, 2007.

B. The monthlycom Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claim (principal principal, KRW 622,109, interest and delay damages) to the Character Capital Co., Ltd., and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim.

Since then, on August 23, 201, the character capital company transferred the above claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims around that time.

C. As of December 26, 2014, the instant loan claims remain as principal KRW 622,109 and damages for delay from March 10, 207 to December 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 2,315,614 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 622,109 for delay damages of KRW 1,693,505) and damages for delay of KRW 622,109 for principal amount, barring special circumstances.

B. (1) The Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has expired after the lapse of five years with commercial bonds.

(2) The claim of this case constitutes a commercial activity conducted on behalf of a monthlycom corporation, which is a merchant, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription applies. The extinctive prescription runs from April 5, 2007, where the Defendant delayed the implementation of the claim. The fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 29, 2014, which was five years after the lawsuit of this case, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim of this case expired due to the completion of prescription.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and thus, it is revoked and the plaintiff's.