1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) D Union lent 10,000,000 won to C on September 12, 1994 at the interest rate of 12.5% per annum, due date for payment on July 19, 196 (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Defendant and E guaranteed C’s obligation on the same day.

(2) On June 21, 2013, DF transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by DF and notified C of the assignment of claims on or around the 23th of the same month.

(3) The principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 16,850,578 as of December 28, 2017 (principal principal KRW 7,590,891 overdue interest at KRW 9,259,687).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 16,850,578 of the principal and interest of the instant loan and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 7,590,891.

2. The defendant's judgment-making partnership on the defense of extinctive prescription is a credit union established under the Credit Unions Act. According to the Credit Unions Act, a credit union is a non-profit corporation, and thus it cannot be viewed as a merchant for profit-making purposes, and the Civil Act generally applies

In addition, there is no evidence as to the circumstances in which the instant loan claims can be seen as commercial claims.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription period of the loan claim of this case is ten years as stipulated in the Civil Code.

However, as seen earlier, the fact that the repayment period of the instant loan was July 19, 196 is the same as that of the foregoing, and the fact that the Plaintiff raised a payment order against the Defendant and C on January 5, 2018 more than 10 years after the date when the application for the payment order against the Defendant and C was due is due is apparent.

Ultimately, the defendant's defense pointing this out has already expired since the loan claim of this case had already expired.