1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The court's explanation on this part of the parties' assertion is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. Determination

A. The judgment C on the cause of the claim agreed 2% of interest monthly to the Defendant and paid the instant loan, the fact that C’s husband and wife succeeded to the instant loan claim, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claim from E, and the fact that the Plaintiff was notified of the acquisition of the instant loan claim from E is as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the obligor of the instant loan claim, is liable to pay the interest of this case to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant claim.

B. According to the Defendant’s defense of the statute of limitations as to the Defendant’s defense, it is acknowledged that the period of repayment of the instant loan was September 30, 1996, and the instant application for the payment order was filed on May 1, 2017 after the ten-year statute of limitations, which is applicable to the above loan claim, was far more than that of the above loan claim. Thus, the instant loan claim was extinguished due to the completion of the said statute of limitations and its effect extends to the instant interest claim, which is the subordinate right (see Article 183 of the Civil Act). Thus, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable.

C. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the instant loan prior to the birth of the Plaintiff. However, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 14 through 19 alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion (C prepared a request for auction on October 2005, in order for the instant loan claim to proceed to compulsory execution against D land at the time of mass production, which is the security of the instant loan claim, and actually prepared a request for auction on or before the date of the instant request for auction.