2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a debtor who was granted a loan with the amount of KRW 50 million and KRW 43 million at a damages rate of KRW 25% on March 5, 2010 from Nonparty A District Mutual Savings Bank. The Plaintiff is a joint and several surety for the above loan obligations.

B. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff by acquiring the above loan claims and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff, which orders the payment of the same amount as the following: (a) the payment order order (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Da4029, Jun. 29, 2017) was issued on June 29, 2017, which became final and conclusive on August 8, 2017.

90,819,266 won and 88,438,521 won among them, which are calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from January 28, 2015 to the date of full payment, 【Ground for Recognition of Damages for Delay: the absence of dispute, and the statement in Gap evidence 1

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the above loan was a commercial claim and the extinctive prescription was completed on March 5, 2015, five years after the date of loan.

3. That the Plaintiff’s debt on the Plaintiff’s loan to determine the cause of the claim is a commercial debt and for which five years have elapsed from the date of loan on March 5, 2015.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, ① the fact that a voluntary decision to commence auction was made upon the application for commencement of auction on the real estate owned by the non-party 2, a joint guarantor, based on the claim for the above loan against the plaintiff, and the seizure disposition was taken, ② the plaintiff as the principal debtor in the above voluntary auction procedure, and the original copy of the decision to commence auction was served on July 4, 2014 and December 19, 2014.

If so, the debt of the Plaintiff was suspended due to the notification of the seizure before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

As such, the plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations expires is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.