1. The Defendant’s payment order issued on September 3, 2015 against the Plaintiff was based on the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015 tea5810 Guarantee Money Claim against the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant, who wholesale and retail business of main goods, supplied the main goods equivalent to KRW 10,09,547 on February 28, 2005 to C, and ② the main goods equivalent to KRW 63,600 on March 31, 2005, respectively. The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligation to pay for the above goods.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C by this Court 2005Gau122398 seeking the payment of the above goods.

On May 19, 2005, this Court made a decision of performance recommendation that "C shall pay 10,733,147 won to the Defendant and damages for delay," and the above decision of performance recommendation was served on C on May 26, 2005 and became final and conclusive on June 10, 2005.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of joint and several liability obligations related to the price of the said goods as the court 2015 tea5810.

On September 3, 2015, this Court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 10,733,147 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2015, and became final and conclusive on September 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including numbers in case of serial numbers), the whole purport of the pleading, and the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the defendant's corporation C and the defendant's claim for the joint and several guarantee against the plaintiff were expired and expired.

Therefore, this case's payment order is subject to non-permission of compulsory execution.

Judgment

A. Even if the extinctive prescription of a surety obligation is not completed, the surety obligation shall also be extinguished naturally in accordance with the subsidiary nature of the surety obligation, as a matter of course, since the primary obligation is extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription.

In addition, the surety is extinguished upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription for the principal obligation.