1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff in the Seoul Western District Court case 2013Hu1774 dated March 25, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. Korea Card Co., Ltd. had a credit card use payment claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant credit”). On April 30, 2003, it transferred the credit card use payment claim to a limited-liability company specialized in friendly securitization. On February 29, 2008, a limited-liability company specialized in friendly securitization transferred it to the Promotion Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and the Promotion Savings Bank Co., Ltd. transferred it to the Defendant on January 3, 2012, and completed the assignment of claims with a content certification with each Plaintiff’s fixed date.

B. As of March 22, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the instant claim amount against the Plaintiff reaches KRW 7,011,233 of the total amount of principal and interest KRW 1,94,664, and interest KRW 5,016,569, etc. as of March 22, 2013. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order as Seoul Western District Court 2013 tea1774 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the Plaintiff failed to raise any objection despite being served with the said payment order.

C. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Chuncheon District Court 2014Hadan675, 2014Ma675 (hereinafter “instant application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability”), and the same year

7. The declaration of bankruptcy was rendered on November 27, 198.

However, the list of creditors applying for bankruptcy and exemption of this case stated the claim amounting to KRW 697,00,000, interest amounting to KRW 2,382,878 for our card company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, at the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption of the instant case, entered the instant claim against Korea Card Co., Ltd., and the instant claim had been extinctive prescription already expired at the time of the application for the instant payment order.

Therefore, it is argued that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case, which seeks the claim of this case extinguished due to the completion of prescription, should not be allowed.

An order of payment shall not take place, even if it becomes final and conclusive, because it does not take place.