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

A. On July 4, 2005, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 250,000,000 from the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 125,000,000 among them until August 17, 2005, KRW 125,00,000 by September 15, 2005, and on the same day, a notary public drafted a certificate (hereinafter “certificate”) as 3767 at the Dhap Office 2005.

B. Since then, the Defendant accused the Plaintiff by deceiving the Defendant and by deceiving the Defendant as a loan, and accused the Plaintiff on the charge of fraud. On January 13, 2011, the Plaintiff was found to have been guilty of committing the crime that the Plaintiff received money from the Defendant under the pretext of the loan, and acquired it by fraud. The Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 15, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as "relevant criminal judgment"). C.

On May 21, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 250,000,000 for a loan of KRW 250,000 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 tea25844, and the payment order was issued on June 2, 2015, and became final and conclusive on June 26, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendant’s loan claim based on the notarial deed of this case was converted from the time when the relevant criminal judgment became final and conclusive, and the starting date of extinctive prescription of the above damage claim is the date when the relevant criminal judgment became final and conclusive.

However, the defendant applied for the payment order of this case more than three years after the date when the relevant criminal judgment became final and conclusive. Since the payment order of this case is related to the claim extinguished after the extinctive prescription is completed, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

B. The lender may borrow money from the lender when the borrower belongs to the lender.