1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 1998, Defendant A entered into a loan transaction agreement between Korea-Japan Bank and the amount of loans extended to general household loan amounting to 4.7 million won and 25% per annum on September 30, 1999 on the expiration date of the loan. Defendant B and C jointly guaranteed Defendant A’s debt.

(hereinafter “Claims for loans of this case”). (b)

On February 14, 2003, a mutual savings bank promotional mutual savings bank filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on October 21, 2004 against the Seoul Central District Court 2004Gaso1954684, and received the judgment of the first instance court in the process of service by public notice.

C. Since then, a mutual savings bank promoting mutual savings bank transferred the instant loan claims to intervenors on June 5, 201, and notified Defendant A of the assignment of claims on July 20, 201. D.

On the other hand, the promotion mutual savings bank (the promotion mutual savings bank) is declared bankrupt, and the plaintiff is appointed on May 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff and the intervenor asserted that they are obligated to pay the defendants the interest of 10,326,654 won of the loan of this case and 5,249,941 won of the loan of this case with 19% interest per annum from May 20, 2004 to March 2, 2005 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the claim for the loan of this case had expired after the lapse of five years from September 30, 1999.

B. First of all, when examining whether the plaintiff or the intervenor can seek money from the defendants as alleged above, each of the evidence mentioned above is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. There is no obligation to pay the loan of this case on domestic affairs.

In addition, the defendants are required to do so.