The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding the Plaintiff KRW 10,356,214.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 200, a judgment was rendered on February 1, 200, stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 10,391,034 won and 10,059,864 won among them, 18% per annum from August 25, 1999 to January 5, 200, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

(Seoul District Court 99 Ghana75409, and the above judgment was hereinafter referred to as the "the judgment of indemnity of this case"). The judgment of indemnity of this case became final and conclusive around this time.

B. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff all the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant (the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 10,059,864, subrogated payment of KRW 801,869, subrogated payment of KRW 801,869, and damages of KRW 22,778,612, and the following (hereinafter “claim for reimbursement”). On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment by content-certified mail.

C. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the case at the trial court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A or Evidence A or Evidence A or 3, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff did not have the right to claim against the defendant since he transferred the claim for reimbursement of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

In the absence of special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay 10,356,214 won and 10,059,864 won and 18% interest per annum from August 25, 1999 to January 5, 200, and 25% per annum from January 6, 200 to June 16, 2010 to June 16, 2010, as sought by the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, to the extent recognized in the judgment of indemnity of this case.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant received a loan from around 1997, the claim for indemnity of this case was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription on December 31, 2002.

final and conclusive by a judgment.