1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 34,651,823 as well as KRW 23,497,489 among them, from January 2, 2012 to the day of full payment.

1. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including each number), it is recognized as the same facts as that of the reasons for the claim in the annexed sheet.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages in accordance with the agreed rate of 25% per annum from January 2, 2012 to the day of full payment with respect to the principal and interest of KRW 34,651,823 and the principal of KRW 23,497,489, which is the day following the calculation of the final delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that a loan claim as stated in the attached Form (hereinafter "loan claim of this case") was fully repaid or extinguished by prescription.

B. First, we examine the defendant's assertion of repayment.

Since there is no evidence to support that the principal and interest of loan claimed by the plaintiff in this case was repaid, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Next, we examine the assertion of extinctive prescription.

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Franchi Mutual Savings Bank, Inc., the transferor of the instant loan claims, may recognize the fact that the Defendant-owned real estate, as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security established on October 7, 2004 in the voluntary auction procedure (U.S. District Court B) of the real estate commenced on October 18, 201, submitted the claim statement of the instant loan claims, and received dividends of KRW 26,969,826 as part of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims on July 12, 201, which is the date of distribution.

If a creditor, who had been registered prior to the registration of the first decision to commence the auction as a mortgage and has been extinguished by sale, exercised his/her right by reporting the existence of a claim, its cause and amount to the court, the report on such claim constitutes a seizure under subparagraph 2 of Article 168 of the Civil Act and becomes effective to interrupt extinctive prescription for the reported claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da28031, Sept. 9, 2010). According to the above facts acknowledged, five years have elapsed from the due date