1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 8,110,747 and KRW 4,444,274 among them.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Basic facts (1) The Defendant borrowed each of the following loans, but failed to pay the loan. On the other hand, each of the above passbook loans provided that interest or damages for delay may be included in the principal of the loan.

On October 28, 2002, each of the above lending companies transferred each of the above lending claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2002, on November 2002, 2002, each of the above lending companies transferred each of the above lending claims against the Defendant on December 28, 2002, around 3,000,000,000 general passbook loan 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000.

The principal and interest of each loan claim against the defendant as of September 30, 2006, as of September 30, 2006, with the sum of 4,444,274,274,66, 719 3,11,747, 554,726, which is a mutual savings bank in charge of the settlement of accounts for a loan of a lending institution (cost) interest, shall be as follows:

(4) On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired each of the above loans against the Defendant from the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claims upon delegation of the Plaintiff’s authority to notify the assignment of claims, around January 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff successor intervenor the amount of KRW 8,110,747 as total interest of each of the principal of this case and the principal of KRW 4,444,274 as total interest of KRW 8,110,74 as well as delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2006 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final settlement of interest.

C. The Defendant’s claim regarding each of the loans of this case was extinguished by the lapse of five years from the date of loan to February 2006, when the period of extinctive prescription expires.