1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff was based on the Incheon District Court's 2008 tea 7923 guaranteed debt payment order.

1. Basic facts

A. B received a loan of KRW 15.4 million from the Defendant on April 16, 2003 from the Defendant as a loan for exchange loan. The interest rate of the loan is 22% per annum, overdue interest rate (damage for delay) is 24% per annum, and the Plaintiff entered the application for the loan as a joint and several sureties.

B. B obtained a loan of KRW 16.1 million from the Defendant on July 17, 2003 from the Defendant as a substitute loan. The above loan interest rate of KRW 22% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and the Plaintiff’s application for the loan is written as a joint and several sureties.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). C.

On June 11, 2008, the Defendant received the payment order of this case from the Incheon District Court (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Plaintiff, which was recorded as joint and several sureties of the pertinent loan, with the payment order of this case (hereinafter “instant payment order”), stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 35,458,080 and the amount of KRW 16,105,934 calculated by the rate of 29.9% per annum from June 4, 2008 to the date of full payment,” and the payment order of this case was finalized around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant loan was claimed as the cause of the claim for the instant payment order, but the instant loan was already repaid, and the Plaintiff did not stand as joint and several surety for the instant loan. The Plaintiff did not prove the exact amount of the loan claim, and even if not, the claim based on the instant payment order was extinguished by prescription.

(A) Although the plaintiff alleged that he did not receive the original copy of the instant payment order, the plaintiff was served with the original copy of the instant payment order according to the evidence No. 2, so the above assertion is without merit).

Judgment

An order of payment has become final and conclusive.