1. The original copy of the payment order for the Defendant’s claim for loans 2015 tea 1930 against the Plaintiff A in Suwon District Court.

Facts of recognition

Plaintiff

A borrowed 40 million won from D on October 22, 1991 as interest rate of 30% per annum, due date on June 22, 1993, and due date on June 22, 1993. The Plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt, and D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of 60 million won, the debtor, and the mortgagee-mortgage D with the maximum debt amount of 1884m2 and the amount of 115m2, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, the Plaintiff’s ownership as joint collateral.

As the plaintiffs failed to repay the above borrowed money, D applied for the auction of real estate rent to Suwon District Court G on September 24, 1993 for the above apartment owned by the plaintiff Eul, and completed the registration of the decision on commencement of auction on September 24, 1993, but the above voluntary auction procedure was terminated on May 16, 1994, and the record was discarded after the lapse of the preservation period.

The defendant takes over the above loan from D on February 15, 2012 and has taken over the same year.

4. 17. The registration of the right to collateral security regarding each of the above real estates has been completed on the ground of the transfer of confirmed claim.

On May 1, 2015, the Defendant filed an application against Plaintiff A and B for a payment order claiming the loan of KRW 36 million (the sum of interest at 30% per annum from May 1, 2012, 2012, on the acquisition bond of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the delay damages, and the expenses for demand procedure. Accordingly, the said court failed to file an objection within two weeks since the Plaintiffs received each payment order issued on May 26, 2015.

6. 16. Finality

(2) The court below held that each of the above payment orders of this case had no dispute, Gap 2, Eul 1-3, Eul 12, and 27, and the plaintiff's loan or joint and several surety obligation of this case expired after the lapse of 10 years from May 16, 1994 when the auction procedure of real estate rent as requested by D was terminated. Thus, execution based on each of the payment orders of this case should be rejected.

Defendant.