1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 82,185,056 and KRW 28,859,601 among the Plaintiff, from March 9, 2015 to March 26, 2015.

The non-party National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural Cooperative Federation") extended a loan of KRW 30 million to the defendant on April 29, 2002 at the rate of 16% per annum on March 20, 207, with the maturity of payment on March 20, 2007. The Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred the above loan claims against the defendant to the plaintiff on March 23, 2005, and notified the defendant thereof. As of March 8, 2015, the defendant's debt amount as of March 28, 205 is the principal amount of KRW 28,859,601 and interest or delay damages amount of KRW 53,325,45, and is recognized by the whole purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and 6.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the total amount of KRW 82,185,056 and the principal amount of KRW 28,859,601 from March 9, 2015 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, 16% per annum under the said agreement, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Since the defendant's defense that the above loans were extinguished due to the expiration of the prescription period, according to the evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the NACF applied for payment order against the defendant in this court on the above loans to the defendant and the original copy of the payment order was served on October 18, 2005. Thus, the above loans against the defendant was suspended as the above payment order application, and the above payment order was enforced again from October 18, 2005, and it is apparent that the above payment order was issued since ten years have not passed thereafter, and therefore, the above loans were re-scheduled upon the plaintiff's application for the payment order of this case.

As such, the defendant's above defense is without merit.

In addition, the defendant argues that the above loan agreement is invalid as a false agreement, but there is evidence to recognize it.