Therefore, a claim based on the payment order under Paragraph (1) of the Disposition, which is the execution right of this case that the defendant acquired against the plaintiff, was fully repaid by B and his spouse, E and the plaintiff as the principal debtor.

I would like to say.

[E] On April 1, 2003, at the time when the Defendant repaid 25 million won to the Defendant, it is recognized that the Defendant returned all the bond documents, such as the respective loan certificates, etc. against B and the Plaintiff, and confirmed and agreed that the claim was fully repaid (the Defendant submitted a document recognizing this point to the other case filed by the Defendant against C).

(iii) recognize as above in light of the fact that it is not, and not, as above.

Even if a claim based on the above payment order has become final and conclusive on April 24, 2013, when ten years have passed since April 23, 2003, for which the payment order became final and conclusive, or on June 20, 2017, when ten years have passed again after the extinctive prescription was interrupted by consultation with the defendant, or when ten years have passed again after the termination of the extinctive prescription on June 20, 2007.

I would like to say.

If so, the defendant's claim based on the above payment order against the plaintiff was already extinguished by repayment, and it is not so.

Even if the extinctive prescription was completed,

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of enforcement force of the above payment order is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.