1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 67,956,247 and KRW 18,586,715 among the Defendants.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

on June 22, 2007, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (former trade name: E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Company”)

(2) On May 2016, 201, 200,000 won was loaned at the interest rate of 5.5% per annum, 24% per annum of overdue interest rate, and 36 months of repayment period. At this time, Defendant C guaranteed the obligation of the Defendant C’s above loans. (2) On May 20, 2016, D transferred the above loans and all the rights incidental thereto to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant Company, a primary debtor, of the said assignment of claims.

3) As of July 29, 2019, the above loans totaling the interest and overdue interest in KRW 18,586,715 as of July 29, 201 and the interest and overdue interest in KRW 67,956,247 were overdue.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 67,956,247 and the principal amount of KRW 18,586,715, which is the following day of the above base date, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum calculated within the scope of the overdue interest rate from July 30, 2019 to the date of full payment.

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion that the statute of limitations expired

A. In light of the overall purport of the evidence admitted earlier, the fact that: (a) prior to the transfer of the above credit, D filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Defendants by the Incheon District Court 2008Gaso206473 regarding the above loan claims, and the decision of performance recommendation was confirmed by July 16, 2008 (the final date: July 16, 2018; June 11, 2018); and (b) the fact that the Plaintiff’s application for the instant payment order was filed on September 10, 2019 when ten years have elapsed since the date when the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 165 of the Civil Act was made.

B. However, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the whole arguments, D extended loans to the defendant company as above.