1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. This Court rendered March 25, 2019 with respect to cases of suspension of compulsory execution under 2019 Chicago94.

1. According to the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 4, the defendant filed an application with the plaintiff for a payment order against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea47555 against E limited liability company and F with respect to the loan claim (hereinafter "loan claim of this case") that is transferred to the defendant via E-stock company and F, and the above court on March 13, 2015, for payment order from the above court, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 23,312,803 won and 7,336,386 won per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original payment order to the day of full payment.

‘The payment order of this case' is 'the payment order of this case'.

The above payment order has been issued, and it is recognized that it has become final and conclusive.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case is limited, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be dismissed.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 2, Eul filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on December 6, 2006 against the plaintiff for the payment of the loan claim of this case (which became final and conclusive on April 11, 2007, the period of extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case was extended to 10 years from the time the above judgment became final and conclusive.

Since it is apparent that the instant payment order was filed before the lapse of ten years from the time the above judgment became final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription was not completed at the time of the application for the instant payment order.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff was not notified of the assignment of claims, the defendant cannot seek the payment of the loan claim of this case.

According to the evidence No. 1-3 submitted by the Plaintiff, the assignment of claims between Company D and E limited liability company, the assignment of claims between E limited liability company and Company F, and the notification of the transfer of claims between Company F and the Plaintiff has already been issued by the Plaintiff.