1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 17, 2001, the Plaintiff applied for a credit guarantee on January 14, 2002 and was selected as a person scheduled to provide credit guarantee around that time.

Then, on January 16, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 5 million from a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) using the employee credit guarantee support system provided pursuant to the credit guarantee support agreement concluded between the Defendant and a financial institution (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On March 11, 2004, the Defendant delayed the payment of the principal and interest on the instant loan, and B claimed the Defendant to discharge the guaranteed obligation, and on March 29, 2004, the Defendant on March 29, 2004, subrogated to B for the payment of the principal and interest amounting to KRW 4.25 million (85%) and interest amounting to KRW 4.17,810 and costing to KRW 85,00 (hereinafter “instant subrogation”).

C. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff claiming the payment of the amount of reimbursement claim against the Plaintiff arising from the subrogated payment of this case under the Cheongju District Court Decision 2004Da6416, and the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued on December 24, 2004, and the above payment order was finalized on January 19, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 11, 15 (including satisfy number), Eul evidence 2, 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim based on the payment order of this case has become extinct after the lapse of ten years from January 19, 2005 when the above payment order became final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above payment order of this case should be rejected.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that since the defendant's right to indemnity against the plaintiff arising from the subrogation of this case was provisionally seized on the plaintiff's real estate, the claim based on the payment order of this case was suspended due to the interruption of the statute of limitations.

3. Determination

A. Provisional attachment under Article 168 of the Civil Code.