1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 10, 1980, the Gi-dong Saemaul Fund 2, the repayment date was set at the interest rate of 13 May 13, 1982 and the rate of 24% per annum for the Defendant.

B. The above principal and interest claim against the Defendant was finally transferred to the Plaintiff on January 25, 2013 through a loan company for E-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

C. The principal and interest of the above loan that has not been paid as of April 2, 2013 is the sum of KRW 2,335,595 ( principal and interest of KRW 2 million, KRW 335,595).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 2,335,595 and the damages for delay from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On this ground, the defendant's decision to recommend reconciliation was confirmed to the effect that the claim against the defendant, the deceased, and the defendant's children, C, D, E (hereinafter "the defendant, etc.") is renounced in the claim for transfer money which the plaintiff already acquired the principal and interest of the loan against the deceased's 2-dong Saemaeul Cooperative, the deceased's husband, and the deceased's children, and the defendant's children. Thus, the claim in this case should be rejected due to res judicata effect of the above recommending settlement, and even if not, the above claim for the principal and interest was extinguished by extinctive prescription.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the subject matter of the decision on recommending reconciliation, which became final and conclusive against the defendant, is identical to that of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit, but it is apparent that the date of the lawsuit in this case is April 2, 2013, and it is apparent that it is ten years after the date of repayment. Thus, the claim for the principal and interest of the loan in this case was extinguished by the statute of limitations.