1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 1996, the Dongjak-gu Saemaul Fund loaned a loan of KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant, a partner, at the interest rate of KRW 13.5% per annum and on November 18, 1998.

B. The Dongjak-gu Saemaul Savings Depository received KRW 12,018,065 from June 20, 2003 in the auction procedure of the real estate B in the Daejeon District Court regarding the real estate owned by the Defendant, and collected KRW 47,737 from the Defendant’s contribution on December 26, 2003 to appropriate it for the principal and interest of the instant case, respectively.

C. On June 28, 2013, the Dongjak-gu Saemaul Savings Depository transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff.

On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff delegated the authority to notify the assignment of claims from the Dongjak Saemaul Fund and sent a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant by content-certified mail, and this notice of assignment of claims reaches the Defendant around that time.

Meanwhile, as of April 11, 2016, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims as of April 11, 2015,186,089 won (the outstanding principal amount of KRW 25,834,198 overdue interest amount of KRW 89,351,891). The overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff within the limit of the agreed interest rate for delay on the instant loan claims is 17% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. According to the basic facts prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from April 12, 2016 to the date of full payment of the principal and interest of the instant case and the remaining principal amount of KRW 25,834,198.

B. The defendant 1 did not know that the debt of this case was used by the defendant and did not have been repaid at will after 2003, and the statute of limitations expires. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had been extinguished by the lapse of the statute of limitations. Since the defendant has repaid the debt of this case by June 22, 2006, the ten-year statute of limitations is also excessive.