1. As to KRW 1,321,741,226 among the Plaintiff and KRW 377,668,850 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from July 29, 2019 to August 29, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C. On July 13, 2004, the C.C. (hereinafter “C”) loaned KRW 1,060,000 to the Defendant on July 13, 2007 on the repayment date.

B. The Defendant failed to repay the loan upon the lapse of the repayment period, and the remaining principal and interest of the loan as of July 28, 2019 is a total of KRW 1,321,741,226 (= Principal KRW 944,072,376, including interest of KRW 377,68,850).

C. Meanwhile, C transferred the above obligation against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2017 according to the scope of business under Article 30 of the Act on the Structural Improvement, and around that time, C notified the Defendant of the above transfer.

The overdue interest rate after April 30, 2018 is 6.8% per annum.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff who acquired loan claims the total sum of KRW 1,321,741,226 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s defense of the extinctive prescription has been asserted to the effect that the extinctive prescription expired on February 13, 201, five years after the date of the said successful bid, since the voluntary auction on the real estate offered as security at the time of the said loan expired, and that the extinctive prescription expired on February 13, 201, which was five years after the date of the said successful bid.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the payment order for the above loan claim against the defendant on February 24, 2010, before the five years have elapsed since the above five years have passed, and the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim was suspended, and the ten-year extinctive prescription period has run anew from February 25, 2010, which is the following day. It is evident that the lawsuit in this case was filed on August 6, 2019, before the ten-year period from February 25, 2010. Thus, there is no ground for the above extinctive prescription defense.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant shall be the plaintiff 1,321,741.