1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the determination under paragraph 2 as to the defendant's argument which is dismissed or added in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

【The part of the decision of the first instance court 【The agreed rate” in the third 5th of the decision of the first instance shall be changed to “the agreed interest rate”.

Part 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

“In the event that another claim is transferred to a creditor for the repayment of a debt to a creditor, the assignment of the claim shall not be deemed to have been transferred in lieu of the repayment of the debt, but shall be deemed to have been transferred by means of a security for the repayment of the debt or by means of a repayment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10385, Feb. 13, 1990). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to receive the refund of the sale price as a substitute for the repayment of the debt with the Defendant, and there

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Of the Plaintiff’s instant loans claimed by the Defendant, KRW 130,006,50 as of December 10, 2009 and KRW 130,006,50 as of June 10, 2010 and KRW 130,006,50 as of June 10, 2010, the extinctive prescription of commercial claims has expired upon the lapse of each of the following periods: (a) the Defendant is not obliged to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. On December 31, 201, the fact that the repayment period of the instant loan was December 31, 201 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the date on which the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant to pay the instant loan is apparent in the record that the date on which the Plaintiff applied for the payment order against the Defendant on July 6, 2015, and thus, the instant loan claim is deemed to have not elapsed five years, which is the extinctive prescription period of commercial claim at the time of filing the lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reached.