1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts are recognized in full view of each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The defendant did not enter into a loan agreement with the non-party credit card company as follows and did not repay the loan, and the loan obligation as specified below remains.

The above credit card companies transferred each of the above claims to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2005 in accordance with the Asset Transfer Contracts and Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and completed the notification of the assignment of claims.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from December 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, with respect to the total amount of KRW 48,723,272, and the amount of KRW 10,266,604, which falls under the principal of the Plaintiff’s outstanding principal.

B. The defendant's defense that the claim for the amount of the above transfer has already expired by prescription.

Pursuant to Article 5(2) and (1) and Article 47(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, claims arising from an act falling under a commercial activity are commercial claims to which the five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies only to one of the parties. According to Articles 5(2) and (1), and 47(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, even if a company does not engage in a commercial activity, it shall be deemed as a merchant even if it does not engage in such commercial activity, and the act performed by a merchant for his/her business purpose is presumed to have been conducted for his/her business purpose, and the act performed by a company for its business purpose is presumed to have been conducted for its business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7863, May 27, 2005). In this case, the five-year extinctive prescription period applies to the Plaintiff’s claims that the Plaintiff acquired from the EL

However, in full view of the purport of the foregoing evidence’s argument, each of the instant cases.