1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On May 3, 2007, the Vietnamnet Co., Ltd. (the later changed to the “Snetnet Co., Ltd.”) lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on May 3, 2007 by setting the lending period of 60 months, the lending rate of 65.7% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of 66% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). On April 10, 2012, Vietnamnet Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant payment order”) filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order against the Defendant seeking payment of the outstanding principal and interest, KRW 2,659,332, and interest or delay damages thereon, until the time Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 tea 23539, and issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with respect to the Defendant on April 23, 2012. The original of the above payment order was delivered to the Defendant on July 4, 2012, and became final and conclusive on July 19, 2012.

On March 8, 2016, the Vietnamnet Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims against the Defendant to the Defendant to this Supporting Loan Co., Ltd., and on April 20, 2016, the instant loan claims were transferred to the Plaintiff.

On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of each assignment of the above assignment of claims with the delegation of the Vietnamnet Co., Ltd. and the support loan Co., Ltd.

As of June 8, 2016, the Defendant’s debt of the instant loan remains at KRW 2,659,332, interest rate of KRW 2,987,741 (this rate is applied).

On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, seeking the payment of the instant loans, which were acquired from the Vietnamnet Co., Ltd. and the Eccom Loans Co., Ltd. in succession.

[Ground of recognition] In a case where there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, the whole purport of the pleading, and the validity of the lawsuit in this case, the ten-year lapse, which is the period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment, has a benefit of lawsuit.

As long as it is practically difficult to enforce compulsory execution due to the imminent completion of the statute of limitations, it shall be prior to that.