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.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant entered into a loan agreement with the National Bank of Korea (a loan account) on September 30, 2002 and started to delay in repayment of the loan. The National Bank of Korea transferred its claim against the defendant on December 12, 2008 to the plaintiff and notified the defendant of the transfer on March 23, 2009. The amount in arrears by the defendant as of June 7, 2017 is 3,470,100, 10, 10, 119, 722 in total, 13,589,822 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 13,589,82 and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 3,470,100.

The defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription expires and the plaintiff's claim has expired.

On August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff acknowledged the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff and approved the obligation by preparing a request for approval of debt and a letter of undertaking to repay the debt in installments (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”). Accordingly, pursuant to Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription is resumed from August 24, 2012 pursuant to Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant applied for the instant payment order on June 29, 2017, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

As to this, the defendant asserts that there is no fact in writing the letter of commitment of this case.

Judgment

The issue is whether the Defendant approved the obligation of the Plaintiff by means of preparing the instant letter of undertaking, which is a disposal document.

When the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it shall be careful in recognizing the authenticity of the disposal document in light of the fact that the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document should be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement.