2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has already expired since the lapse of the period of five years from December 2, 2004, when the claim for the instant loan was due.

According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, even if a claim established in a payment order falls under a short-term extinctive prescription, the period of extinctive prescription is extended to ten years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 5, the fact that the payment order for the instant loan claim against the Plaintiff against the Defendant against June 8, 2006, which was issued on June 8, 2006 and finalized on June 30, 2006, may be recognized.

The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2015, before the lapse of ten years from the date on which the payment order became final and conclusive, is apparent in the record. As such, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Defendant on June 26, 2015, and the Defendant’s objection thereto was performed as the instant litigation procedure. The application for payment order also includes “judicial claim” as provided for by Article 170(1) of the Civil Act, and the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit. 4. Part of the dismissal of the instant lawsuit was revised from October 1, 2015 to 15 per annum. Since the agreement on delay payment damages for the instant loan claims was 18% per annum, the portion of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay that exceeds the rate of 18% per annum after October 1, 2015.