A. On March 11, 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed 32 million won from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation as of March 11, 2005 with the due date set by March 11, 2005.

(hereinafter “instant loans”). (b)

On March 23, 2005, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred the instant loans to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the said loans at that time.

C. On February 28, 2014, the Defendant filed an order with the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff for the return of the instant loan under Daegu District Court racing support 2014 tea635, and the said court issued an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,806,896 and KRW 3,200,000 from February 28, 2014 to the delivery date of the above payment order, 18% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive on April 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. In cases of a lawsuit seeking objection against a final and conclusive claim for a payment order, the grounds for objection may be asserted even before the issuance of the payment order, such as the extinction of the claim before the issuance of the payment order;

(2) The Defendant applied for the instant payment order on February 28, 2014, which was five years after the due date, and the statute of limitations has expired prior to the application for the instant payment order. In light of the above facts, the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan was extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the application for the instant payment order. As such, the Defendant had filed an application for the instant payment order on February 28, 2014, which was five years after the due date.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.