1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant claim, asserts that the promotion mutual savings bank, the transferor of the instant claim, (hereinafter “promotion mutual savings bank”), filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of prescription due to the imminent completion of prescription of the claim based on the payment order No. 2005Guj8014, which was received against the Defendant. Therefore, we examine ex officio as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including various numbers), on August 17, 2005, the court issued an order to pay to the defendant on August 17, 2005, "the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the plaintiff and the amount of 35,942,527 won," and the above payment order was served to the defendant on November 12, 2005 and confirmed as it was finalized on November 27, 2005, after receiving the payment execution clause from the promotion mutual savings bank, the plaintiff acquired the instant claim from the above court and did not cancel the above payment execution order and requested the above payment order to the above Jeju District Court as the title of execution, or to the defendant's claim and the seizure order as 44,2487 and the above payment order as of the above financial institution as of August 26, 2007.

The statute of limitations is interrupted due to seizure and new progress from the time when the cause for interruption ceases to exist. In light of the fact that the execution agency is the first stage of the compulsory execution that prohibits the disposal of the debtor's property by the final and conclusive judgment or other executive titles in order to enforce monetary claims, the statute of limitations is extinguished and its effect is terminated.