1. The defendant's payment order for loans, etc. against the plaintiff by the Seoul Southern District Court on September 26, 2005.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 15, 2004, the Defendant applied for a payment order of KRW 10,045,622 against the Plaintiff and C as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Hu18688 on the ground that the Defendant lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff and C, and on September 26, 2005, the said court issued a payment order (the following is the payment order of this case, and the obligation under the payment order of this case is the claim of this case) on September 26, 2005, stating that “The obligor (the Plaintiff and C) jointly and severally paid KRW 30,045,62 to the obligee (the Defendant in this case) and the amount at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant payment order until the full payment is made.”

The payment order of this case was served on October 5, 2005 on the plaintiff and C and became final and conclusive on October 20, 2005.

B. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant received the seizure and collection order as the Incheon District Court 2016TT821 by designating the instant payment order as the executive title.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts as to whether the statute of limitations has expired, the claim of this case is extinguished by prescription on October 20, 2015 when ten years have elapsed since the date when the payment order of this case became final and conclusive, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. (1) On November 29, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations has been interrupted, on the ground that, based on the instant order of payment, the Defendant received a decision of seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”) from the Incheon District Court Decision 2012TTT3262 from November 29, 2012, and thus, the statute of limitations has been interrupted.

The Plaintiff asserts that, on July 12, 2013, the interruption of extinctive prescription became retroactively extinct upon the Defendant’s application to cancel the attachment.

(2) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, since the defendant received the seizure collection order of this case as of November 29, 2012 based on the payment order of this case, the period of extinctive prescription against the claim of this case shall be interrupted (see Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act).