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. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2007, the Defendant received a loan by setting KRW 1,500,000 from C on August 7, 2012 due date, interest rate of August 7, 2012, interest rate of 65.7%, and delay damages rate of 66% (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On November 16, 2012, C transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff. At that time, C’s notice of assignment of claims was sent to the Defendant by content-certified mail.

C. As of July 10, 2017, the Defendant did not fully pay the principal and interest and damages for delay incurred from the instant loan amounting to KRW 7,635,569. Of them, the principal amount is KRW 1,436,441.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a transferee of the instant loan claim, the sum of the principal and interest as of July 10, 2017 and the delay damages as of July 10, 2017 and the principal amount of KRW 7,635,569 and delay damages as of KRW 1,436,441.

B. The facts that the Defendant’s claim for extinctive prescription regarding the instant loan claim was made on August 7, 2012 are as seen earlier, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in the instant case was filed on July 10, 2017, which was five years after the said lawsuit was filed. As such, the instant loan claim, which is a claim arising from commercial activities, had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription is justified.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the contrary of this conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.