1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 1990, the grain credit union set KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on July 14, 1991, and lent the interest rate to the Defendant on July 14, 1991 by stipulating that the payment deadline shall follow the fluctuation rate of the financial institution. B and C guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the grain credit union.

B. As the Defendant did not repay the above loan debt, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in bankruptcy of the Food Grain Credit Cooperatives received a decision of performance recommendation that "the Defendant, B and C shall pay 19% per annum from August 13, 2003 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment," and the decision of performance recommendation was finalized on September 14, 2003 as of September 14, 2003.

C. A grain credit union transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2006, and notified the Defendant through content-certified mail on April 21, 2006. D.

As of July 26, 2013, the balance of the bonds to be transferred is KRW 20,516,972 ( principal KRW 3,920,00).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 27, 2013 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance, with respect to KRW 20,516,972 and KRW 3,920,00 among them.

3. Determination on the defendant's defense, however, the facts that the decision of performance recommendation against the defendant on September 14, 2003 became final and conclusive are as seen earlier, and it is obvious that the plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on November 13, 2013, which was later than 10 years after the lapse of 10 years, and thus, the plaintiff's above claim was extinguished by the statute of limitations. Thus, it points this out.