1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 1998, Defendant B entered into a loan agreement (the agreed amount of KRW 10,000,000, due date of payment of KRW 19% on June 8, 2001, the agreed rate of KRW 19% on delayed interest rate of KRW 25%) with D Association, and Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation to pay the principal and interest of the loan.

B. Defendant B is the above.

In the same manner, some of the loans were overdue while making loan transactions.

(hereinafter referred to as “the principal and interest of this case”)

On January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff received successive assignment of the principal and interest of this case from D Cooperatives and E, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on February 2, 2017.

The balance of the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 4,476,924 as of June 21, 2017 (i.e., overdue interest of KRW 721,563, etc.).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the principal and interest of the instant loan amounting to KRW 4,476,924 (i.e., the balance of the loan amounting to KRW 721,563) (i.e., overdue interest of KRW 3,755,361) and delay damages for the remainder of the loan amounting

B. (1) The defendants asserted that the claim of the principal and interest of this case was extinguished due to the completion of the commercial statute of limitations after the lapse of five years from the due date when the payment order of this case was requested.

(2) In this case, the term of extinctive prescription is five years with commercial claims pursuant to the main sentence of Article 64 of the Commercial Act. The fact that the repayment period of the principal and interest of loan of this case was June 8, 2001 is the same as seen earlier. It is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s application for the payment order of this case was filed on June 21, 201, which was five years after the application for the payment order of this case was filed. Thus, the statute of limitations had already expired before the application for the payment order of this case was filed.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendants' defense is justified.

3. Conclusion