1. The defendant's order for payment is based on the order of payment No. 2013, No. 1111, which was issued by the Changwon District Court for the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. In fact, Nonparty C borrowed KRW 6.5 million from the Defendant on November 20, 2003, and set the due date on December 26, 2003, the interest rate at 60% per annum.

The plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of C to the plaintiff on the same day as the above C's father.

On December 24, 2003, the Plaintiff and the above C drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as above.

From September 6, 2003 to September 1, 2008, from October 22, 2008 to February 5, 2009, the Defendant registered the credit business with the trade name "D" and "E" with the trade name "E" from September 4, 201.

By November 2003, the above C repaid part of the above borrowed money directly or through Nonparty F.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for payment order No. 2013 tea 1111 with a court requesting that the above loan amounting to KRW 6.5 million be jointly paid to C and the Plaintiff, and the payment order became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection despite being served with the payment order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, payment order, notarial deed, each entry of notice of decision to disclose administrative information, purport of the whole pleadings

B. The judgment of the court below is a merchant of credit business, and the lending of money in this case constitutes a commercial activity, and the prescription period for commercial claims under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies.

The Defendant’s claim against C was extinguished on December 26, 2008 after five years from the due date, which was December 26, 2003, and the prescription was terminated on December 26, 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, a joint guarantor, also expired.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order that the defendant requested after this is not allowed.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is against the res judicata of the payment order, and that the above C accepted the debt of this case, and thus the extinctive prescription has not been completed or the defendant's claim against the plaintiff has not been extinguished by giving up the benefit of prescription.

(b) Determination - In the case of a finalized order of payment.