1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. On January 6, 2001, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff-Succession Intervenor Co., Ltd. entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant on a loan agreement with the terms of lending KRW 3,00,000 at a rate of 19% per annum on delay compensation, as of January 5, 2002 on the expiration date of the lending period (hereinafter “instant loan”). On January 5, 2002, the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into an additional agreement with the terms of extending the expiry date of the lending period by January 4, 2003.

On November 23, 2009, the Korea Exchange Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff.

On March 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a loan lawsuit against the Defendant.

On June 21, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion does not exist since he borrowed KRW 3,00,000 from Choung Bank on January 6, 2001, and there is no claim for the loan of this case.

The loan claims of this case were extinguished by prescription.

2. We examine the judgment, and determine that the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply to the instant loan claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, which fall under commercial claims. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on March 29, 2010 after the lapse of five years from January 4, 2003, the final maturity date of the instant loan claims asserted by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, it is apparent that the instant loan claims of this case had already been expired.

(3) As long as the Defendant’s objection to the statute of limitations is acknowledged as above, the issue of whether the loan claim in this case was forged or not shall not affect the conclusion of the claim in this case, and thus, the judgment shall be omitted). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case by the Plaintiff-Successor shall be dismissed as it has no reason.

In this court, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor participated in the succession, and the plaintiff withdraws from the lawsuit of this case, so the defendant's appeal is made.