1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s acquisition money against the Plaintiff is the Seoul Central District Court 2010 teas 114716.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The 4th to 12th parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to or after the addition, and the 7th parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows:

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case is to run from May 13, 199, which became due, barring special circumstances. Since it is apparent that the application for the payment order of this case was filed on September 9, 2010 after the lapse of 10 years from that date, the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case is to be deemed to have already expired, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order of this case should be rejected.

Accordingly, according to the evidence evidence evidence No. 4, the defendant defense that E's electronic output from the day after December 23, 200, which was recorded as the last transaction date after the above maturity date, the extinctive prescription period will run, and therefore, it can be acknowledged that the claims of the plaintiff were stated "200-12-23 on the last transaction date" in the records of claims against the plaintiff, but it is unclear what the meaning of the above last transaction date is, and there is no evidence to deem that the above last transaction date was approved, including partial repayment of debts, provision of collateral, and request for postponement of the deadline, in light of the above facts, there is no evidence to support that the statement No. 4 of the evidence No. 1 is insufficient to deem that the defendant had approved the obligations as the grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription period at the above time as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore, the above

A person shall be appointed.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition to accept the plaintiff's appeal and revoke it.