1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 69,249,110 and KRW 20,407,90 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 69,249,110.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 30,000,000 from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) on or around July 18, 2008, with an overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum after the maturity of 12 months, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claim against the Defendant from C on May 20, 2016, and notified the Defendant thereof around that time. The amount of the instant loan claim as of January 31, 2019 can be acknowledged as constituting a total of KRW 69,249,110, total of the principal and interest of KRW 20,407,904 and interest of KRW 48,841,206.

According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 69,249,110 won and the principal 20,407,904 won among them, as requested by the plaintiff, delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 11, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Although the defendant argues to the effect that the representative D is only the representative in the name of the defendant, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability of the defendant company solely for the above reasons, the above argument is without merit.

2. In a case where a judgment on the benefit of a lawsuit has been interrupted, the period of prescription that has lapsed until such interruption shall not be included therein, but shall newly run from the time when the cause for interruption ceases to exist (Article 178(1) of the Civil Act); and in a case where the cause for interruption ceases to exist, the effect of interruption of prescription by “a seizure” among the causes for interruption of extinctive prescription,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840 Decided April 28, 2017, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 4, C, based on the authentic copy of the document of monetary loan loan contract No. 1999, a notary public on the instant loan claim, filed an application for the seizure and collection order against the Defendant on August 11, 2009, and received the seizure and collection order on August 11, 2009.