1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 299,450,000, as well as its substitute, from December 4, 2010 to January 3, 2011.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court is identical to the part on “1. Recognition” of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the final transferee of the instant balance claim, the amount of KRW 29,450,00,00 per annum from December 4, 2010 to January 3, 2011, which is 11.72% per annum from January 4, 201, from January 4, 201 to March 3, 2011, and 14.72% per annum from January 4, 2011 to March 3, 2011, and from March 4, 201 to June 3, 2011, the delay damages calculated at each agreed rate of 16.72% per annum from June 4, 2011 to June 3, 2011.

3. Determination as to the expiration of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim has expired. Thus, according to the foregoing facts, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim constitutes a commercial claim arising out of the instant contract that constitutes a commercial activity. The extinctive prescription of the instant claim is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, and it is apparent that the instant claim was filed on December 3, 2010, when five years have elapsed since the date of the instant lawsuit was filed on August 31, 2017, which was the last day of the occupancy designation period. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription expired, barring any special circumstance

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the 1st party regarding the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the Plaintiff’s judicial claim is that C actively asserts the validity of the contract of this case in the transfer lawsuit of this case and the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim becomes final and conclusive. The Plaintiff re-claimed that the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was interrupted until the judgment on the transfer lawsuit of this case becomes final and conclusive due to C’s response act.

As to this, the defendant, ① the lawsuit filed by the defendant for the transfer of this case.