1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2012Hu12638.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 1994, Hanil Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Hanil Bank”) loaned 13 million won to B at the interest rate of 8.5% per annum and 17% per annum. On the same day, the Plaintiff set the guarantee limit of 195 million won for the above loan obligations to Hanil Bank on the same day.

The balance of the above loans as of March 2002 is KRW 33,283,081.

After the change of the Korean Commercial Bank (hereinafter “Korea Commercial Bank”), the Korea Commercial Bank (hereinafter “Korea Commercial Bank”) merged Korea and succeeded to the above loan claims. The above loan claims were transferred to the Korea Commercial Bank (hereinafter “Korea Commercial Bank”) on March 2002, 202, to the Korea Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Commercial Bank”) on February 2003, and the Korea Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. was assigned in sequence to the Defendant around June 201, and around that

B. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a payment order to “B and the Plaintiff jointly and severally pay KRW 34,911,672” as Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 201Hu12638, May 2, 2012, and became final and conclusive on May 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as the "payment order of this case").

On July 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order against each of the deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s new bank and the Daegu bank as the Daegu District Court 2017TTTTTT9854 on July 7, 2017, and collected KRW 11,637,224 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s new bank, and KRW 375,902 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s Daegu bank on July 18, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition: The entries in Gap 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 10, the entries in Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the Defendant’s transfer of the debt, which was the cause of the instant payment order, expired by the lapse of five years from March 17, 2002, which was the date of the final repayment of the loan, and thus, it should be denied compulsory execution based on the instant payment order. The Defendant’s unjust enrichment amounted to KRW 12,013,126 and KRW 126.