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. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2007, the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with 1.5 million won for the first use, 1.5 million won for the first use, 5 years (60 months) from the date of termination of the contract, and 65.7% per annum for interest rates and delay damages, and received a loan of 1.5 million won from 1.5 million won for cream loan (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. However, the Defendant, on October 24, 2007, lost the benefit of time on December 24, 2007, which was two months after the loan pursuant to the monetary loan loan contract, because it was impossible to repay the obligation of this case last.

C. On December 29, 2008, the right to claim the instant loan was transferred to the Plaintiff. On May 4, 2016, notice of the assignment of the instant loan was sent to the Defendant by content-certified mail.

The instant claim is KRW 4,951,061 in total, KRW 1,277,492 in principal as of April 18, 2017, KRW 3,673,569 in overdue interest.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the transferee of the loan claim of this case, with compensation for delay on principal and principal of the loan claim of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim expired by extinctive prescription.

In light of the above evidence, the loan claim of this case is a commercial bond with the period of extinctive prescription of five years, and the loan claim of this case can be recognized as having come due because it has lost the benefit of time around December 24, 2007, and the fact that the plaintiff submitted the complaint of this case on April 28, 2017, which was five years after the lawsuit of this case, is apparent in the record. Thus, the loan of this case had already expired prior to the lawsuit of this case.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion.