1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 24,359,365 as well as KRW 23,372,537 among them, from February 26, 201 to the day of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, the fact that Hyundai Macks Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "foreign Co., Ltd.") loans KRW 34,80,000 to the defendant on August 23, 2010 by setting the lending period of KRW 6 months, installment repayment of principal and interest on repayment method, interest rate of loans per annum 8.95%, interest rate per annum, interest rate for delay delay rate of 24% per annum, and interest rate per annum 20% per annum; the non-party Co., Ltd transferred the above lending claim to the plaintiff on February 7, 2011 and notified the defendant of the above assignment of claim on February 23, 201; the principal and interest as of February 25, 2011 are KRW 24,359,365 won (the principal and interest as of February 25, 2011).

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 24,359,365 won and 23,372,537 won among them with 24% interest per annum from February 26, 2011 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant’s defense that the starting point of the statute of limitations against the Defendant was August 23, 2010, the date when the loan contract was concluded, and the five-year statute of limitations under the Commercial Act expired, and the above claim expired by the statute of limitations.

B. The starting point of the judgment is the starting point of calculating the period of extinctive prescription, which falls under the legal effect of the extinction of an obligation, and it constitutes a specific fact that constitutes the legal requirement of the defense of extinctive prescription, and thus, is subject to the application of the principle of pleading (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da35886, Aug. 25, 1995). The burden of proof as to the starting point of the extinctive prescription lies in a person who asserts the benefit of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da13435, Jun. 30, 1995). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the starting point of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is August 23, 2010, as alleged by the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the starting point

3. Conclusion, the Defendant’s 24,359,365 won and 23,372,537 won among them shall be the percentage of 24% per annum from February 26, 2011 to the date of full payment.