1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 6,499,497 and KRW 4,830,225 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 4,830,225 on June 13, 2015.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Samsung Bio-resources decided on March 15, 2001 as the Defendant’s lending limit of KRW 7.5 million and annual interest rate of KRW 18%.

Samsung Bio-resources transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim at that time.

B. As of June 12, 2015, the sum of principal and interest of the Defendant as of June 12, 2015 exceeds KRW 6,499,497 (i.e., the balance of principal KRW 4,830,225) (i.e., attempted interest of KRW 1,69,272). The rate of delay damages determined by the Plaintiff is 17

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 17% per annum as determined by the Plaintiff within the scope of overdue interest rate from the following day of the base date ( June 13, 2015) to the date of full payment of the principal and interest of the loan amount of KRW 6,49,498 and the principal of the loan amount of KRW 4,830,225.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's above assertion can be admitted as it is.

Therefore, the defendant 1.B.

have the obligation to pay the money set forth in the subsection.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above claim has expired.

However, according to the evidence No. 6, it can be acknowledged that the defendant prepared and delivered the "request for debt approval adjustment and letter of undertaking (for installment repayment)" to the plaintiff on November 6, 2015, and approved that the plaintiff holds the above claims. Thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant was suspended by accepting the debt owed to the plaintiff, or that the defendant voluntarily renounced the profit of the completion of the prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and 1.B. to the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the payment of the money mentioned in the subsection.