1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Hu5967.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3,000,000 from the Sung Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (formerly changed trade name: Kosung Mutual Savings Bank, Ltd.)

(hereinafter “instant loan claim”). B.

On July 23, 2014, the Defendant acquired the instant loan claims from the Insung Savings Bank, and around September 2014, the Defendant applied for the payment order against the Plaintiff in the Seoul Western District Court 2014, the Seoul Western District Court 2014, the 535,636 won, interest 3,308,678 won, overdue interest 3,669,37 won, and overdue interest 9,513,691 won, and applied for the payment order on October 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

C. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant, based on the instant payment order, received a claim seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim as Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2014TTY 4441 on December 16, 2014. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant applied for a seizure and auction of corporeal movables against the Plaintiff’s movable property under Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2015No843.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. The instant loan claim as to the cause of claim is a financial institution with a five-year extinctive prescription, and there is no agreement on the period of repayment, and thus extinctive prescription is run from January 28, 2004, which is the date of loan. According to the above basic facts, the instant order for payment was clearly filed on or around September 2014 after the lapse of five years from the date of loan, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has already expired.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case which ordered the payment of loan claim of this case, the extinctive prescription is not allowed.

B. The defendant's assertion was confirmed after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, but the defendant did not raise any objection against the seizure and collection of the defendant's claims based on the instant payment order, and the seizure of corporeal movables.