1. The payment order for the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff of the Seoul Central District Court on March 8, 2012 is the payment order for the acquisition money claim of 2012 tea13068.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 1998, Japan Bank concluded a loan transaction agreement with the Plaintiff, and loaned KRW 4,400,000, and B guaranteed the Plaintiff’s above loan obligations.

B. On December 30, 199, Japan Bank transferred the above loan claims to the Liquidation Corporation. On December 19, 200, the Liquidation Corporation transferred the above loan claims to the ELS SPcom on December 19, 200, and on December 19, 200, the ELS SPP Investmentcom transferred the above loan claims to the PPS Co., Ltd. on December 12, 2003, and on April 16, 2009, the PPS transferred the above loan claims to the Defendant.

C. Around March 2, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order against the Plaintiff and B, and the said court issued a payment order stating that “The Plaintiff and B shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 12,104,491 and the amount of KRW 4,01,458 calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from February 25, 2012 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's claim against the plaintiff of this case has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the plaintiff does not have a duty to pay the acquisition amount claimed in the application for the payment order of this case to the defendant. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff of this case

As to this, the defendant did not object to the payment order of this case even after the plaintiff received it, and gave up the prescription benefit, the plaintiff shall raise objection to the defendant.