1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumption

A. On February 24, 2005, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) lent KRW 6,389,409 to the Defendant by means of exchange. On March 24, 2005, in installments from the Defendant during the period from March 2, 2005 to February 2, 2008, the amount of KRW 198,693 as of the end of each month from March 2, 2008, and in the event of delay, a notarial deed (No. 683, 2005, a notary public), which recognizes that there is no objection, was drafted.

B. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff received the transfer of the above loan claims from the non-party company and delegated the notification of the transfer of claims, and notified the Defendant of the transfer on December 3 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] The items of Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. As to the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the above amount, the defendant set up a defense that the transferred loan claim expired due to extinctive prescription.

B. (1) The final due date for repayment of the loan claim of the non-party company was February 29, 2008. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2015, which was five years after the instant lawsuit was filed, the said loan claim had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

The defendant's defense is justified.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the period of extinctive prescription is ten years pursuant to Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, inasmuch as a notarial deed on the loan was prepared.

However, a notarial deed has an executory power as a title of debt, but there is no res judicata such as a final judgment.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the 10-year statute of limitations has elapsed pursuant to Article 165(2) of the Civil Act as a claim established by the same effect as the judgment on the loan, on the ground that the loan was notarized as such.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da169 delivered on April 14, 1992). The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.