1. The defendant's decision was based on the original payment order in the Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 tea3915 against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff used a credit card issued by the Peace Bank with the credit card, but failed to pay the amount of use.

On December 31, 2001, Korea Credit Card Co., Ltd. that acquired the credit card payment claim of the above bank (hereinafter “the instant claim”) transferred the instant claim to a limited-liability company specialized in the next securitization of the financial system. On September 30, 2004, the above company transferred the said claim to the Defendant, and on October 7, 2004, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the said transfer.

B. On May 31, 2012, the Defendant was issued a payment order with respect to the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 16,901,055 won and the amount of KRW 4,196,642 at a rate of 20% per annum from March 21, 2012 to the date of full payment,” and the above payment order was finalized on June 22, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant payment order”). C.

Based on the instant payment order, on August 23, 2012, the Defendant was issued with Busan District Court 2012 Tadi18578, which was issued with the same court 2013 Tai320, May 1, 2013 as the same court 2013, and with the same court 2013 Tai3308, December 26, 2013; and on March 27, 2015, with the same court 20165 Tai8141, with respect to the claim against each of the financial institutions, including Korea Bank, Nonghyup Bank, and Nonghyup Bank, the Defendant issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim against each of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant seizure and collection order,” referring to the above seizure and collection order.

On January 24, 2014, the Defendant collected KRW 2,979,088 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. based on the instant seizure and collection order.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. On the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, which was the cause of the payment order of this case, expired five years after the due date, and thus, the payment order of this case was issued.