1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2002, the Defendant loaned KRW 22,000,000 from the Korean Bank (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) at the rate of delay damages, 19% per annum, and on December 26, 2006, the final redemption date.

B. On September 11, 2008, our bank: (a) on September 29, 2008, Korea EF&A Co., Ltd.; (b) on September 29, 2008, Korea Ef&A Co., Ltd., Ltd.; (c) on July 16, 2010, Korea Ef&A AWA limited liability companies specialized in Ef&A’s asset-backed securitization; (d) on e-mail-backed social companies; (e) on October 20, 2010, e-mail-backed social companies; (e) on e-mail-backed loan companies; (e) on e-mail-backed road map on November 25, 2010, e-mail lending Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., (e., e-mail-based limited companies (e.g., e-mail-based limited companies (e., e., e., e., e., bond management loans to the Defendant e., e.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination as to the cause of the claim. The facts that our bank held the claim of this case against the defendant are acknowledged as above. However, there is no evidence to prove that the notice of transfer was given to the defendant regarding the successive assignment of claim from our bank to the trustable asset management loan of limited liability company, and there is no evidence to prove that the notice of transfer was given to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that our bank acquired the claim of this case in succession from our bank and cannot seek payment of the claim

(b) Extinctive prescription;