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

A. The Defendant lent KRW 3,00,000 to the Plaintiff around December 19, 2001, and, including the agreed interest, was paid in 50,000 each day from around that time to February 19, 202.

B. Around December 22, 2005, the Plaintiff did not pay the above money properly, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff with the 3,000,000,000 won with the High Government District Court Goyang Branch and damages for delay (the case of loans with the High Government Branch 2005, 10300), and the above court's decision of payment order was served on the Plaintiff on March 26, 2006, and the above decision of payment order became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). 【Ground for recognition”: The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under a claim that is regularly paid every 60 days on a daily basis, and the three-year prescription is applicable as it constitutes “a claim with a period not exceeding one year” under Article 163 subparag. 1

The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was extinguished by prescription, since it was obvious that the Defendant had been able to exercise its rights as to the above claim after the lapse of three years from February 2002 to December 22, 2005, since the Defendant applied for the instant payment order on December 22, 2005.

3. The judgment below, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was concluded and confirmed on the date and time, and the method of repayment is merely determined to be paid in installments for a certain period (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1949, Jun. 12, 2001). The circumstance and evidence otherwise asserted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s claim constitutes “a claim with a period of not more than one year” as prescribed by Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant's above claim against the plaintiff shall be subject to the five-year prescription under the Commercial Act, and from December 19, 2001, the claim occurred.