1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Company was established on July 20, 200 for the purpose of the production and sale of the insect network, and the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s succession was actually managed by the Defendant Company until September 17, 2014.

In order to establish the Defendant Company and purchase its factories and machinery, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor financed KRW 110 million from the Plaintiff, KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, and used the funds necessary for the establishment of the Defendant Company as machinery purchase price, etc. from the date of sale of real estate auction cases conducted around February 8, 2010.

On March 15, 2010, the defendant drawn up a certificate of borrowing KRW 110 million with the purport that he borrowed KRW 10 million to the plaintiff A, and on the same day, the plaintiff B borrowed KRW 55 million with the same purport.

B. On October 12, 2015, in the course of the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff A transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the loan claim amounting to KRW 110 million against the Defendant. On the same day, Plaintiff B transferred the loan claim amounting to KRW 55 million against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

On October 12, 2015, the above plaintiffs notified the defendant of each assignment of claims by content-certified mail, and at that time the above notification reached the defendant.

[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor who received the claim from the Plaintiff, A, and B a total of KRW 165 million, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from October 9, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, demanding the performance of the obligation.

B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have ceased to exist due to the completion of extinctive prescription of commercial claims.

According to the above-mentioned facts and the evidence of recognition, the plaintiff A, B and the defendant are to be examined.