1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1.The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged respectively by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings in the entry of Gap evidence No. 1.

Around November 29, 2002, the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Central Capital Capitalpon (hereinafter “Central Capitalpon”) Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Central Capitalpon,” and even in the case of entering the name of another company, the entry “stock company” is omitted), with the loan amount of KRW 3,000,000 per annum; the loan interest rate of KRW 66% per annum; and the loan interest rate and overdue interest rate of KRW 66% per annum; and around that time, the Defendant was paid KRW 3,00,000 from the Central Capitalpon (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claims from the Tesa Mutual Savings Bank, the piracy Capital, and the teelthrate on June 7, 2012 by transfer.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a transferee of the instant loan claim, the principal of the instant loan claim amounting to KRW 3,000,000 and the agreed interest or delay damages therefrom, unless there are other special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the claim of the instant loan had already expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant payment order, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s objection to the instant loan is a commercial bond acquired by the Central Capital Capital of the Credit Business Company through commercial activities, and the five-year commercial extinctive prescription is applied to this claim. The period of the repayment of the instant loan obligation is November 29, 2003, before the Plaintiff filed the instant payment order on November 29, 2013, which was before the date when the Plaintiff filed the application for the instant payment order, and thus, it is apparent that the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has already expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Accordingly, the Defendant’s objection to the foregoing extinctive prescription

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.