1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 10,774,300 among the Plaintiff and KRW 7,389,803 among the Plaintiff, on December 9, 2013.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On July 11, 2007, Korea Bank Co., Ltd. entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant on July 11, 2007, the lending limit of KRW 7 million, the lending limit of KRW 1.25% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 19% per annum, July 14, 2008, and the lending period of KRW 19% per annum, and accordingly, lent money to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant claim”). Around December 28, 2011, the instant claim was transferred to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant claim. 2) The instant claim remains the principal amount of KRW 7,389,803, interest rate of KRW 3,384,497, KRW 1074,300 as of December 8, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,774,300 and the principal amount of KRW 7,389,80,03, whichever is the day following the base date for calculating the principal and interest, to the Plaintiff, delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum for the Plaintiff within the agreed overdue interest rate from December 9, 2013.

2. As to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant loan claim had expired upon the completion of prescription. The fact that the maturity period of the instant loan claim was July 14, 2008 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 9, 2013, which was five years after the said lawsuit was filed, is apparent in the record.

B. However, in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, it can be recognized that the Defendant remitted KRW 1,50,000 to the account for repayment of loans from the Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. on February 27, 2009, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claims was interrupted.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 9, 2012, which was before the expiration of the prescription period from February 27, 2009, the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription is without merit.

On February 27, 2009, the defendant did not deposit KRW 150,000.