1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim, or the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the defendant borrowed KRW 15,000,000 from Eul running a credit business on or around December 24, 2005 as of March 24, 2006. In addition, the defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the above C on or around January 5, 2006 as of March 20, 2006. The plaintiff decided that the plaintiff would have received all of the above principal and interest on the loan to the defendant as of March 11, 2016. The plaintiff, who was authorized to notify the defendant of the transfer and acquisition of the principal and interest on the loan from Eul, notified the defendant by mail or notified the defendant of the content of the transfer and acquisition of the obligation to pay the principal and interest on the loan to the defendant at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1584,

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that C has repaid all of the above loans by means of the so-called "number of days", but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

B. The defendant shall set up a defense that the principal and interest of each of the above loans have expired by five-year commercial prescription.

The facts that C lent money twice to the Defendant while running a credit business are as follows. The repayment period of each loan that C lent to the Defendant is " March 24, 2006" and " March 20, 2006." The plaintiff's written application for the payment order of this case is apparent in the record that it was filed on March 23, 2016, which was five years from the date of the application for the payment order of this case. Thus, each of the above loans and interest claims had already expired before the application for the payment order of this case.

The Plaintiff’s principal and interest on the instant loan.