1. The Defendant’s order for the payment of the acquisition money case against the Plaintiff is issued by the Jung-gu District Court, Dongdaecheon District Court, 2013Hu329.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On March 17, 2006, B, who had engaged in credit business, lent KRW 2,400,000 each to C and D without fixing the due date, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed B, as to B, the aforementioned loan obligation.

(2) B lent to the Plaintiff KRW 2,400,000 on April 6, 2006, and KRW 6,000,000 on April 25, 2006 without setting the respective repayment period.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim” in total of joint and several surety claims and loan claims against the Plaintiff. (b)

B on August 9, 2010, transferred the instant bonds to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer at that time.

C. As to the instant claim, the Defendant applied for a payment order under the court No. 2013 tea329, and the said payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized on May 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff alleged that the claim of this case was extinguished by repayment, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff's claim of this case was extinguished by the plaintiff's repayment only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6 and 9. There is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(A) According to each of the above evidence, the statute of limitations for the claim of this case can be acknowledged in the Plaintiff’s repayment. As seen below, since the statute of limitations has expired all of the claims of this case, it does not separately determine the scope of repayment. 3. As seen earlier, the fact that B, upon the claim of extinctive prescription as to the claim of this case, had been engaged in a credit business at the time of lending is as seen earlier. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the claim

In addition, the claim in this case is subject to extinctive prescription from the time when the claim comes into existence (the date of lease) on the ground that the period of reimbursement has not been fixed, and the defendant applied for the payment order in this case on March 26, 2013, which was five years after the date of the payment.