A. On September 26, 2012, D Bank loaned KRW 169,700,000 to E Co., Ltd. at a rate of 15.29% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of E Co., Ltd. within the scope of KRW 203,640,000.

B. On September 25, 2013, the D Bank transferred the instant loan claim to the F Limited Company (hereinafter “the first transferee”), and thereafter, the said claim was final transferred to the Defendant on November 14, 2014 via G Limited Company and H Stock Company.

C. On October 26, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with E Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the instant loan and the performance of the joint and several liability amount. On October 31, 2018, the payment order was issued and finalized with the content that “E Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 14,836,870 and KRW 83,290,095 per annum 15.29% per annum from October 23, 2018 to the date of full payment.”

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the term of extinctive prescription of the instant loan claims is five years as commercial claims, and on September 25, 2013, a creditor-creditor bank transferred the said loan to the first transferee, and the period of repayment of the said loan claims has arrived.

As such, on September 25, 2018, five years have passed since the above claim was extinguished by the completion of prescription, and the defendant's joint and several liability obligation was also extinguished by its subsidiary nature.

However, on October 26, 2018, after the expiration of the extinctive prescription for each of the above claims, the Defendant applied for the instant payment order and issued it. The above payment order is related to the claim already extinguished, and compulsory execution based thereon should be dismissed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

3...