1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows upon the request for intervention by succession in the trial of the party.

The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 24, 2002, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 4,400,00 to the Defendant 18% per annum, 25% per annum, 25% per annum, and under the condition of principal installment repayment.

B. However, the Defendant’s delay in repayment of principal and interest during the loan period, thereby losing the benefit of time, and accordingly, the principal and interest of interest to be repaid by the Defendant was reached in KRW 5,209,238 before September 30, 2003.

C. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the above principal and interest of loan (hereinafter “the instant loan claim”) to the intervenors and notified the Defendant thereof on June 23, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap or Eul evidence of 1 to 7, Eul evidence of 4-2 and 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts established prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the intervenor, who is the transferee of the loan claim of this case, the agreed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from September 30, 2003 to the date of full payment with respect to the principal amount of KRW 5,209,238, and the principal amount of KRW 4,400,00 among them.

(A) Although an intervenor claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 27% per annum, the agreed damages for delay in excess of the agreed damages for delay is 25% per annum as seen earlier, and there is no ground for the part claiming damages for delay in excess of the agreed damages). Meanwhile, as seen earlier by the plaintiff, there is no right to claim payment of the loan of this case to the intervenor to the defendant any longer

B. As to the determination on the defense, the Defendant’s defense that the statute of limitations expired since December 24, 2002 due to the lapse of the commercial prescription period of five years from December 24, 2002.

The loan claim of this case is a commercial bond, and it is difficult to understand the installment period of the first loan date and the date of loss of benefit due to delay in payment, so the first loan date shall be determined by considering the starting date.

From the date of the closing of argument in this case, the period of five years shall be determined.