A. On September 9, 2005, pursuant to the Housing Finance Credit Guarantee Agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid 4,991,701 won to the Defendant’s B Bank on behalf of the Defendant, and applied for a payment order against the Defendant to the Busan District Court (2009j9327) and applied for the payment order against the Defendant. On April 14, 2009, the Plaintiff received an order of payment from the said court that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 46,009,557 won and 44,991,701 won from September 9, 2005 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the payment order was finalized on May 5, 2009.”

B. As of May 2, 2019, as of May 2, 2019, due to the occurrence of legal procedure costs, additional guarantee fees, etc., the total amount is KRW 46,314,295, and the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on April 18, 2019 for the extension of the prescription period of the said claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the money claimed to the plaintiff.

The defendant's defense that the claim of this case was extinguished by prescription after the lapse of ten years from the date of subrogation.

On September 9, 2005, the payment order of this case was issued against the defendant as Busan District Court Decision 2009Hu9327 and the order was finalized on May 5, 2009. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of this case was interrupted on May 5, 2009, and the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has run anew from May 5, 2009 (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 165(2) and (1) of the Civil Act). Since it is apparent in the record that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on April 18, 2019, which was 10 years after the expiration of 10 years from the time when the payment order became final and conclusive, the above extinctive prescription was interrupted again.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.