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

2. The plaintiff's successor's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 1996, the New Bank Co., Ltd. (Before the change: Cho Jae-a Bank) loaned KRW 9,500,000 to the Defendant on December 31, 1997, which was determined as due date for payment.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant did not repay the instant loan by the due date.

B. On April 30, 2001, the Plaintiff, who received the claim for the loan of this case from the new bank, filed a lawsuit for the acquisition of the loan of this case at this court, which was the first instance court of this case, and all of the litigation materials, including a copy of the complaint, were served to the Defendant by public notice.

On March 22, 2004, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment of the first instance court of this case that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 10,263,650 won in total including the remaining principal, etc. of the loan of this case and the interest rate of 19% per annum from July 26, 199 to the date of full payment.”

The original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of this case was served on March 27, 2004 by means of service by public notice to the defendant.

C. The Plaintiff thereafter transferred to C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd., and C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd., on June 21, 2013, claims based on the judgment of the first instance court of this case to the intervenors and notified each Defendant of the assignment of claims.

On March 17, 2014, the intervenor filed a lawsuit against the defendant as the Seoggu District Court Branch 2014 Ghana308832 against the defendant.

After completing substantive pleadings on August 13, 2014, the above court rendered a ruling that “the defendant shall pay to the intervenors 38,049,767 won of the principal and interest of this case and 10,263,650 won, which is calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from February 7, 2014 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “previous ruling”).

The reasons for the previous judgment include the rejection of the defendant's assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription in this case.

The previous ruling is served on the defendant on August 21, 2014 and has been served on the defendant for the same year.

9.5. Finality has been established.

[Ground of recognition] A.