1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 129,474,262 and KRW 34,732,764 among them, from September 18, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. In full view of the facts of recognition Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, Eul limited-liability company (hereinafter "non-party company") filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim for the amount of transfer money (2008da45491) with the District Court, and on November 14, 2008, the judgment of "the defendant shall pay to the non-party company 68,736,651 won and 34,732,764 won with 17% interest per annum from March 24, 2008 to the day of full payment," and the judgment of the court below was finalized on December 2, 2008, and the plaintiff received the above claim from the non-party company and notified the defendant of the above fact at the time of delegation of the right to notify the assignment of the claim from the non-party company, and it is recognized that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for interruption of the claim.

2. If so, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum to the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim based on the above final judgment (i.e., remaining principal of KRW 34,732,764, overdue interest of KRW 94,741,498, September 17, 2018), and remaining principal of KRW 34,732,764, which is the following day of the above base date, within the scope of the rate of damages for delay under the above final judgment from September 18, 2018 to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the Defendant set up a defense to the effect that a claim for interest among the above claim was extinguished by prescription, but it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 19, 2018 before the lapse of ten years from December 2, 2008, which became final and conclusive, and thus, the statute of limitations was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.