1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the defendant in obtaining a loan of KRW 6,000,000 from the stock company C on September 8, 1998.

B. The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the above credit guarantee agreement against the Defendant B.

C. B did not pay the above loan obligation, and the Defendant repaid C 788,197 won in subrogation of B on January 2005.

The defendant applied for the payment order against B and the plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2009j122781), the above payment order against the plaintiff who is a joint guarantor (hereinafter referred to as "advance payment order") was finalized on January 12, 2010, and the judgment was made on April 15, 2010, and the judgment was finalized on April 15, 2010.

(Seoul Central District Court 2010 Ghana183039). e.

When the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the preceding payment order is imminent, on January 6, 2020, the defendant applied for payment order against the plaintiff on February 19, 2020 for the extension of prescription and the payment order (hereinafter "the payment order in this case") became final and conclusive on February 19, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the claim sought in the payment order of this case is not subject to compulsory execution on the basis of the extinction of prescription.

B. On January 12, 2010, prior order for payment for the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties liability was finalized and finalized on January 12, 2010, and the instant order for payment for the interruption of extinctive prescription was submitted to the court on January 6, 2020 as recognized earlier. Therefore, it is obvious that ten years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009) have not passed since the period of extinctive prescription was calculated.

C. Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking a non-permission of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.