1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim No. 1-1 and No. 2-2, the Plaintiff: (a) on November 30, 2015, pursuant to the Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na556, the Plaintiff: (b) transferred the claim for the transfer of KRW 35 million and its delay damages (hereinafter “the claim for the transfer money of this case”); and (c) on January 15, 2016, the original copy of the instant payment order that the Plaintiff was assigned the claim for the transfer money of this case to the Defendant was delivered to the Defendant on January 15, 2016, barring any dispute among the parties; (d) according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the transfer money claim to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. As to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserted that the instant claim for the transfer-price expired, the Defendant’s final maturity period for the transfer-price claim was December 10, 2005, taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order with the court on January 12, 2016, which was ten years from that date, is apparent in the record, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the said transfer-price claim was extinguished after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period.

B. As to the interruption of the extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff asserted that, first of all, the Defendant approved the Defendant’s obligation to C in the reply submitted on August 24, 2015 in the damages claim case (the foregoing), the extinctive prescription was interrupted pursuant to Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act. In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription period was interrupted pursuant to Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act. On the other hand, the recognition of the obligation as a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription is established by indicating that the obligor, who is the party to the benefit of prescription, would lose the claim due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period, or his/her agent is aware of the other party’s right or obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da6479