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.

On July 3, 2006, when determining the cause of the claim, the claim was transferred to the Plaintiff on June 27, 2007 and the fact that the assignment of the claim was notified to the Defendant on June 27, 2007 that the claim was not disputed between the parties, or that the claim was notified to the Defendant on July 3, 2006 by setting the interest rate of KRW 2 million to the Defendant as 66% without any separate deadline, and that the claim was transferred to the Plaintiff on June 27, 2007.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned unpaid loan and damages for delay.

The defendant's defense as to the statute of limitations is that the above loan repayment claim has expired by the lapse of the period of the statute of limitations of commercial claims of five years.

The loan return claim is a commercial bond due to the commercial activity of the lending company, and the extinctive prescription is five years in accordance with Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

Since the above loan repayment claim can be exercised from the time of its establishment, the extinctive prescription shall begin to run from that time, and it is apparent that five years have passed since July 3, 2006, which was the lending date, applied for the instant payment order on January 24, 2014. Thus, the above loan repayment claim is deemed to have expired since the statute of limitations has already been expired prior to the application for the instant payment order.

(Y) Even if there was an acceptance of debt due to partial repayment of loans, it was incurred before June 27, 2007 by the Plaintiff, so even if the time was deemed as a new starting point for the extinctive prescription, the application for the instant payment order was made after the lapse of five years, and thus, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that there was an approval of the defendant's obligation even after the acquisition of the above loan refund claim, but it is recognized.