1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. According to each evidence submitted by the Plaintiff regarding the cause of the claim, C may recognize the fact that, on March 29, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan claim from C and notified the Defendant of the fact of acquisition of the claim on July 6, 2016, by setting the interest rate of KRW 13,00,000 per month and the due date of payment on July 30, 2007.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 13,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's defense was proved to have extinguished the plaintiff's above loans, a commercial claim, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of five years' extinctive prescription.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 4-1, and 8 of evidence Nos. 2-1 and 4, the defendant: (a) registered each of the trade names called "D" from January 18, 1994 to June 30, 197; (b) from November 10, 200 to December 31, 2001; (c) registered each of the trade names called "E"; (d) registered the business from July 3, 1990 to December 30, 1997 with the trade name "F"; and (d) the defendant supplied a paint from "194 to December 30, 197; (e) registered the business under the name of "C"; and (e) the defendant, other than the fact that the defendant, issued a gift transaction with "C" to secure the payment of goods, such as a gift transaction, and (e) was presumed to have been engaged in a gift transaction with "C" and other than the above facts.

On March 29, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the ten-year statute of limitations should apply since the Defendant and C were not merchants around March 29, 2007, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone.