1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 4, 2001, the Defendant received a loan with a maturity of one million won on February 17, 2005, at the interest rate of 24% per annum from a Pung Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant claim”), and Pung Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff.

By February 19, 2016, the principal of the instant claim is KRW 1,027,927, and damages for delay are KRW 2,815,78.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendant’s claim of this case had already been in progress before December 3, 2004, and the extinctive prescription had already been completed, and the Defendant’s claim of this case had already been completed since Pung Mutual Savings Bank applied for a payment order at the expiration of five years from December 3, 2004.

2. The Plaintiff did not submit a written transfer/acquisition statement on the instant claim with Puho Mutual Savings Bank. As to the Plaintiff’s transfer/acquisition of the instant claim by Puho Mutual Savings Bank, it is insufficient to acknowledge the instant claim only with the statement of evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim,

Even if the plaintiff asserts, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the maturity of the claim of this case is February 17, 2005.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 1, the final repayment date of the claim of this case was September 22, 2004, and the five years have passed thereafter, the Co., Ltd. or the Plaintiff did not take a measure of interrupting prescription against the claim of this case. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was completed.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is concluded differently, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked.