1. The defendant's KRW 69,300,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 1, 2008 to May 3, 2010 to the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff filed a payment order against the defendant with the Seoul Northern District Court 2010 tea2539, Apr. 28, 2010, stating that "the defendant filed an application with the defendant for the payment order from the above court to the date of service of the original payment order from June 1, 2008 to the date of service of the original payment order, 5% per annum from the next day to the date of service of the original payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"). The above payment order was served on the defendant on May 3, 2010 and confirmed on May 18, 2010.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 69,300,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from June 1, 2008 to May 3, 2010, which is the delivery date of the payment order of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The plaintiff has the interest in filing the lawsuit of this case to suspend the prescription period of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant based on the payment order of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the claim against the defendant claimed by the plaintiff in the payment order of this case is doubtful, and thus, it cannot be recognized. However, the defendant's above ground cannot be the subject of examination of the lawsuit of this case brought for the interruption of prescription of the claim based on the payment order of this case. Thus, the above ground is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.