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.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 1993, Hanil Bank loaned 50,00,000 won to the defendant on August 25, 1993 at the interest rate of 9% per annum, interest rate of delay 17% per annum, and due date of repayment on November 25, 1993. Since the above loan claim can be recognized that the above loan claim was transferred from Hanil Bank to the plaintiff via the Korean Finance Primary Asset Securitization Specialized Company and the Promotion Mutual Savings Bank, the defendant is obligated to repay the above loan obligation to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that Han Bank renounced its claim by recognizing Han Bank's error and closing the above loan claim, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument is rejected.

In other words, since the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired, the fact that the maturity period of the above loan claim was November 25, 1993 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent in the record that the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was filed on April 4, 2016 after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit in this case, and therefore, the above loan claim has already expired prior to the lawsuit in this case.

The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The decision of the first instance court with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is revoked and dismissed.