1. The defendant's order of payment order issued on October 24, 2016 against the plaintiff is based on the original copy of the order of payment order issued on October 24, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 9, 2006, the trade name of Company B (hereinafter “B”) was changed to “Company D”;

On June 1, 2006, C and the Plaintiff prepared to the Defendant a loan certificate stating that “B borrows KRW 30 million from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally guarantee the above loan obligation.”

B. On September 28, 2006, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order with B, C and the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 47,907,000, and delayed payment damages. On October 24, 2006, the payment order (hereinafter “the first payment order”) issued by this Court No. 2006,1730 (hereinafter “the first payment order”).

(2) On October 7, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a seizure collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim under the instant first payment order, and received the seizure collection order under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016TTT95, Oct. 13, 2016.

3) On November 9, 2016, the Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff and C for a payment order with the same content as the instant first payment order, and on November 11, 2016, the payment order issued by this Court No. 2016 tea638 (hereinafter “instant second payment order”).

(A) received [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 1 to 5, Eul 3 to 5, and 7], each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s obligation, such as the loan of the principal obligor B, was extinguished by extinctive prescription, and the Plaintiff’s obligation, which was jointly and severally liable, was also extinguished in accordance with the legal doctrine

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff et al. received the instant payment order against the Plaintiff et al., and accordingly executed compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff, as a shareholder and auditor of B, actually controlled and operated B with C, and expressed his/her intent to perform his/her obligation to the Defendant.