A. On September 19, 2003, the Defendant filed a payment order with D and the Plaintiff, the principal debtor of the loan, who is the joint guarantor thereof, and received the payment order with the purport that “D and the Plaintiff jointly and severally pay to the Defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 30,00,000 and 2% per month from October 6, 2002 to the date of full payment,” and the above payment order was finalized on October 15, 2003 and October 16, 2003, respectively.

B. Before filing an application for the above payment order, the Defendant attached on September 9, 2003, the said claim to the real estate (hereinafter “each real estate owned by the Plaintiff”) including 13/14 shares of the E, the 1373 square meters of the 1373 square meters of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the F 218 square meters of the Dorasan City owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant attached the said claim to the said real estate.

(This Court 2003Kadan6941). And on June 2, 2004, the defendant received 3,340,000 won out of the proceeds from the sale in the public auction procedure with respect to D's shares (However, this is not a creditor of the above provisional seizure but a share was distributed based on the right to collateral security separately established), and on May 11, 2004, provisional attachment registration made for D's shares due to the public auction was cancelled.

C. In addition, on September 5, 2003, the Defendant received on December 26, 2003 the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff G and Hdong Council (this Court 2003Kadan6926), and received on June 11, 2004, the claim attachment and assignment order (this Court 2003 Tage2661) to be transferred to the provisional attachment on December 26, 2003.

C. On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for revocation of the provisional attachment order of this court 2003Kadan6941 (this Court Decision 2014Kadan1769), and this court rendered the provisional attachment order on the ground that the Defendant’s claim against D was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription on December 22, 2014, and the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was also extinguished due to its influence.