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. Basic facts

A. A. Around July 19, 2000, the Defendant entered into a credit card use contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

B. Since then, the Defendant failed to pay the above credit card use price, etc. properly, the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant E was transferred in sequence as follows, and each assignment of credit was notified.

E ( July 13, 2005) G limited liability companies ( July 29, 2005) G limited liability companies ( January 11, 2006), H limited liability companies ( November 30, 201), I Co., Ltd. ( July 22, 2013), J Co. 30 ( July 30, 2013) Plaintiff

C. The Defendant’s debt amount is the total of KRW 13,873,280 as of April 21, 2016, and interest KRW 38,690,386, and KRW 52,563,66.

On the other hand, on August 5, 2003, E obtained a provisional attachment order for the Defendant’s automobile (K franchise, L after alteration, hereinafter “instant automobile”) from the Daegu District Court of Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si as the preserved bond with the Defendant’s credit card use-price claim (the claimed amount: 14,845,845 won) against the Defendant.

E. The instant motor vehicle was scrapped on March 24, 2010 and its registration was cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sought the payment of the above amount to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's above claim was extinguished by the five-year extinctive prescription of commercial claim.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 52,563,66 and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 13,873,280.

However, it is reasonable to view that the above claim of the Plaintiff is a commercial claim with five years commercial prescription, and the extinctive prescription was suspended due to provisional attachment against the instant automobile, and the registration of the instant automobile was cancelled on March 24, 2010, and then the extinctive prescription is resumed again. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is brought against the Plaintiff.