1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 42,282,051 and KRW 20,130,257 among them, from November 22, 2002 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a)as shown in the reasons for the recognition in the annexed sheet;

(4) Each statement of Gap's No. 1 and No. 2 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a transferee of the instant loan claim of this case with 42,282,051 won and 20,130,257 won with 24% interest per annum from November 22, 2002 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The statute of limitations has expired since April 18, 2006, which became final and conclusive in Busan District Court Decision 2005Da131892, and the statute of limitations has expired since the ten-year period from April 18, 2006. Even if the Plaintiff’s application for a payment order was interrupted on April 12, 2016, as long as the Plaintiff’s application for a payment order was rejected, so long as the application for a payment order was rejected, the statute of limitations has expired by failing to make a judicial claim again within six months from

B. Article 170(1) of the former Civil Act provides that “The interruption of prescription shall not be effective in the case of dismissal, dismissal, or withdrawal of a lawsuit.” Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that “In the case of paragraph (1), where a judicial claim, etc. has been filed within six months, the period of prescription shall be deemed interrupted due to the first judicial claim.”

Where the interruption of prescription is not effective because a judicial claim is dismissed for an illegal reason pursuant to the above provision, etc., if it is intended to restore the effect of interruption of prescription, it shall be sufficient to make a judicial claim, etc. within six months after the termination

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against the defendant against Busan District Court 2005Kadan131892 and filed a claim for the payment of the loan claim of this case against the defendant.