1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

3...

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, in determining the cause of the claim, he/she acquired the claim for the loan to the Defendant by transfer, and sought the payment of the transfer money to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that he/she finally acquired the claim for the above loan to the Defendant, and sought the payment of the transfer money to the Defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the above loan claim has expired by the prescription, and according to the evidence No. B No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant obtained a loan of KRW 20 million from Co., Ltd. E on August 26, 1996 at the agreed interest rate of 14.25% per annum. The above loan claim is subject to the five-year statute of limitations. The fact that the plaintiff applied for a payment order against the defendant on March 12, 2009, which is more than five years from August 26, 1997 when the payment period of the above loan claim was more than five years from August 26, 1997. Thus, the above loan claim has already expired by the record.

Therefore, the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim of the plaintiff's successor who succeeded to this court has been dismissed