1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 51,103,820 as well as KRW 14,300,000 among them, from July 7, 1995, and KRW 22,00,000.

1. Basic facts

A. B under the guarantee of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, a discount loan was issued by the Defendant on four copies of the Promissory Notes issued by the Defendant, but the said Promissory Notes were refused to be paid due to the suspension of transaction, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund received a judgment in favor of B and the Defendant, who is the issuer of B and the said Four Promissory Notes under the Credit Guarantee Agreement, by filing a lawsuit on the claim for indemnity amount under the Seoul District Court 96Kadan141042.

B. The Credit Guarantee Fund shall, for the purpose of the extension of the extinctive prescription, only B and the Defendant in Seoul Central District Court No. 2006Da351961.

On January 25, 2007, the defendant filed a lawsuit for indemnity amounting to the same contents as the lawsuit mentioned in the paragraph and filed another lawsuit on January 25, 2007, "B shall be 52,345,674 won and 51,241,848 won with 17% interest per annum from October 6, 1995 to the date of full payment. The defendant shall be 51,103,820 won out of the above 52,345,674 won and 14,300,000 won among them, from July 7, 1995 to 22,00,000 won, from August 1, 1995 to 30% interest per annum from August 3, 1995 to the date of full payment, and from August 6, 1995 to the date of full payment."

C. The Credit Guarantee Fund shall be the Plaintiff on September 25, 2014.

Around that time, a claim for the judgment was transferred, and the defendant was notified of the transfer.

The plaintiff was above B.

On February 22, 2017, the instant payment order was filed to extend the prescription period for the claim stated in the claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Facts which are obvious to this court, entries in Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. On December 4, 1995, the defendant was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and on December 4, 1998.