A. On August 17, 1999, the defendant applied for payment order against the plaintiff and B as Busan District Court 200 tea4574 on the ground that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligation against the defendant, and the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter "the payment order of this case") that "the debtor jointly and severally pays to the creditor an amount of KRW 1,300,000 and an amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from the day following the day when the debtor is served with the payment order of this case," which "the payment order of this case is to be paid at the rate of 1,30,000 won per annum from the day when the debtor is served with the payment order of this case."

The payment order of this case was served on May 2, 200 on the plaintiff and A and became final and conclusive on May 17, 200.

B. On January 7, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff and B for a payment order identical to the instant payment order with the Busan District Court 2016 tea227, but withdrawn the application for payment order against the Plaintiff on January 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the principal obligation based on the instant payment order against the Defendant B was extinguished by extinctive prescription on May 2, 2000, when ten years have elapsed since May 2, 2010, which was the date when the instant payment order became final and conclusive, and barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety obligation against the Defendant was already extinguished due to its subsidiary nature.

B. The defendant, as to whether to suspend the extinctive prescription due to repayment, alleged that the extinctive prescription of the claim in this case was suspended since B, the principal debtor, paid part of the money as interest on the claim in this case, several times from February 9, 2001 to October 20, 2006, which was the defendant. However, since the defendant unilaterally prepared documents Nos. 7 and 8 are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's argument is with merit.