1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 135,000,000 won and its payment from March 16, 2003.

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap 6, 12, and 13 (the number of additional numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the argument as a whole, Eul set the maturity of KRW 135 million to the defendant on February 12, 1993 and lent it on December 15, 1993. The plaintiff paid KRW 150 million on behalf of the defendant on September 13, 1999 (the above borrowed principal amount of KRW 135 million and interest KRW 15 million) on behalf of the defendant (the above borrowed principal amount of KRW 135 million). The plaintiff filed an application against the defendant for the payment order of the above debt repayment amount of KRW 35 million on February 28, 2003 with the Seoul District Court Decision 2003Da532220,000,000 from the next day of the payment order of KRW 350,500,00.

The facts of the issuance of the above order, and the above payment order is served on the defendant on March 15, 2003, and it is recognized that the defendant's failure to raise an objection was confirmed on March 30, 2003. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the debt amount under the above payment order, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription and the plaintiff's second defense

A. Since the defendant defenses that the above claim of the plaintiff was extinguished by the prescription, it is clear that the payment order of 2003, which ordered the defendant to pay the amount of 135 million won for indemnity against the plaintiff and delay damages therefrom was finalized on March 30, 2003, the above claim of this case was filed again on January 13, 2014 after the lapse of 10 years from the plaintiff, and the fact that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case for the payment order of this case is clear in the record.

B. On June 9, 2004, prior to the expiration of the above extinctive prescription period, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for evasion of compulsory execution and filed a criminal investigation against the Defendant, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to “a withdrawal of the complaint to repay the Plaintiff as permitted by the penalty,” and the said obligation.