1. As to KRW 378,263,903 and KRW 100,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from January 22, 2014 to February 4, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 15, 2005, Nonparty National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “CF”) entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant on July 15, 2008, setting forth KRW 700,000,000 as the repayment date.

(The rate of damages for delay was 15 per annum). (b)

On December 17, 2013, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred the claim for the above loans to the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and at that time notified the Defendant of the above transfer.

C. As of January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against the Defendant that was transferred by the NAFF from the NAF has remainder of KRW 100,000,000 as principal and interest thereon.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 378,263,903 won ( principal of KRW 100,000,000 interest of KRW 278,263,903) and the principal of KRW 100,000,000 among the above facts. From January 22, 2014 to February 4, 2014, it is evident that it is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, the agreed interest rate of KRW 15% per annum for delay, and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the five-year extinctive prescription of the debt of the instant loan under the Commercial Act has expired.

On January 22, 2014, when the repayment date of the instant loan was July 15, 2008 and more than five years passed thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against the Defendant on June 4, 2009, before the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against the Defendant as the cause of the application for the instant loan claim, and on June 27, 2009, the said payment order became final and conclusive. Therefore, the period of prescription of the instant loan obligation is earlier than the expiration of that period.