1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to KRW 11,069,274 among the Plaintiff and KRW 4,805,327 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall on December 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 200, the Korean Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. (the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. prior to the merger) lent interest to the Defendant 14.9% per annum on October 10, 200, and KRW 5,000,000 per annum on October 10, 201 on the expiration date of the lending period. On December 12, 2008, the said lending claim against the Defendant was transferred to the Plaintiff (the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. prior to the change).

B. On March 23, 2009, the Plaintiff received delegation of notification authority from the National Bank of Korea, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above assignment.

C. As of December 17, 2015, the principal balance of the loan claim as of December 17, 2015 is KRW 4,805,327, and overdue interest is KRW 6,263,947.

On the other hand, the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff within the scope of the overdue interest rate on the purchased bonds is 17% per annum.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above facts based on the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the above loan claim amounting to KRW 11,069,274 (=the balance of principal + KRW 4,805,327 + overdue interest + KRW 6,263,947) and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 4,805,327, which is 17% per annum from December 18, 2015 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's defense is defense that the above loan claim expired by prescription.

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's request for the payment order of this case was received on December 18, 201, which was five years after the expiration of the payment order of this case. Thus, according to the above facts acknowledged, the defendant's above assertion is deemed reasonable. Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 5, the national bank, the original creditor of the above loan, is the defendant's bank prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.