1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Under the underlying facts, the Plaintiff issued a payment order against the Defendant, stating that “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 6,000,000 won with 5% per annum from November 1, 2002 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment,” and the said payment order was finalized on January 21, 2004, by applying for the payment order to the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2003 tea31935.” The said payment order may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in subparagraph 1-1.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff lent KRW 66 million to C on September 30, 2002 as of October 30, 2002, which was set as due date, and received a per share order of KRW 66,000,000 issued by the defendant as security, and the above payment order was issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2003j31935 against the defendant to seek the payment of the check money based on the above per share order, and the above payment order became final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case to suspend the extinctive prescription of the claim finalized by the above payment order.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts: (a) The final and conclusive payment order is merely an executory power, and (b) the failure or invalidation of a claim arising prior to the issuance of a payment order is not recognized as res judicata, such as the failure or invalidity of a claim for a final and conclusive payment order (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966, Jul. 9, 2009). In the event a creditor files a lawsuit again for the extension of prescription against the final and conclusive payment order, the burden of proving the cause of the claim is still borne by the creditor.

B. The following points can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following points, that is, the defendant's office as representative director, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the instant case, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 11, and the overall purport of the arguments. D. 6.