1. The defendant's KRW 575,00,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 14, 2001 to June 22, 2001, and the following.

1. The facts that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the defendant, and on June 8, 2001, the judgment of the court below that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 575,000,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 14, 2001 to June 22, 2001, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the above judgment can be recognized as the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 201.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest at a rate of 5% per annum from April 14, 2001 to June 22, 2001, 25% per annum from the next day to March 13, 2019, Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 201), and interest at a rate of 15% per annum under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 201) from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s defense for the completion of the extinctive prescription and the Plaintiff’s re-claim 1) set up a defense that the said loan claim has expired by the statute of limitations. The Defendant asserted that the said loan claim has expired by the statute of limitations, as seen earlier, on the record that the judgment on July 20, 201 became final and conclusive, and that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2019, after the lapse of 10 years from the filing of the instant lawsuit, barring any special circumstance, the said loan claim has already been extinguished by the statute of limitations before the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Article 168 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act and Article 170 (1) of the Civil Act stipulate one of the causes for interruption of prescription.