1. The independent party intervenor's claim is dismissed;

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the independent party intervenor;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, the court below determined and lent to the defendant on April 14, 2009 the sum of KRW 1,250,000 to the defendant on three occasions on May 6, 2009, when the payment period of the above loan was due on December 31, 2009. Bo Hong transferred the above loan credit to the defendant of Bo Hong on October 30, 2012 to the defendant who was an independent party intervenor, and notified the defendant of the above transfer by mail on October 30, 2012. According to each of the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan repayment damages to the defendant as the loan transferee, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan payment period of KRW 1,250,000,00 to the independent party of the loan as the loan transferee, and the above loan transferee's damages for delay to the defendant on December 31, 2012.

The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired.

However, according to the above evidence, as a stock company all of the parties to a loan are merchants (Article 4 of the Commercial Act) or constructive merchants (Article 5(2) of the Commercial Act). The above money lending act constitutes a commercial transaction between merchants, and the period of extinctive prescription is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. It is clear in the record that the claim of this case by an independent party intervenor was made on June 29, 2015 because the five years have passed since the above lending date, it is apparent that the claim of this case by an independent party intervenor was made on June 29, 2015. Thus, the above loan claim should be deemed to have already expired prior to the claim of

An independent party intervenor asserts to the effect that the above loan claim does not constitute a claim arising from commercial activity since the borrower of the above loan was the former representative director C, not the defendant, but the defendant. However, the claim of this case against the defendant on the premise that the independent party intervenor is the defendant.