1. The Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff was based on the original copy of the payment order in the claim for reimbursement amount case No. 2017 tea.3271.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as having no dispute between the parties or as having integrated the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1:

A. On April 11, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground of the claim indicated in the attached Form (Provided, That “creditors”, “debtors”, and “debtors”, respectively).

B. On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a payment order stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 210,061,693 won and KRW 79,027,967 per annum 12% per annum from April 12, 2017 to the date of service of the payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

C. The instant payment order was finalized on May 2, 2017 because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the instant payment order.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s above indemnity claim is in progress from May 24, 2005, which is the date of subrogation, and the Defendant applied for the instant payment order on April 11, 2017, which is apparent in fact that ten years have passed since the date of application for the instant payment order. As such, the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s above indemnity claim has already expired at the time of application for the instant payment order.

B. As to whether to waive the benefit of extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the benefit of extinctive prescription is waived, since the Plaintiff did not object to the instant payment order.

On the other hand, the recognition of the obligation as the cause of interruption of the extinctive prescription is established by the notification of the so-called concept established by the obligor who is the party who is the party who is the party who is the party who is the party who receives the extinctive prescription benefit, indicating that the other party's right or obligation is known to the party who is the party

On the other hand, the waiver of the statute of limitations after the completion is made.