1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant borrowed 13 million won from the Plaintiff on June 18, 2003 to the Plaintiff on the Daegu District Court 2004Guj32842, and applied for a payment order with the above court on August 2, 2004 to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the Defendant and the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the Defendant for the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and received the payment order with the content of 13 million won per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment.

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on August 20, 2004, and was finalized on September 4, 2004.

B. 1) On August 1, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of the instant claim with the Daegu District Court 2014Gu6181 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim, but upon the Plaintiff’s objection, the said case was subject to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking payment of the instant claim, Daegu District Court 2014Ga5159 (hereinafter “related lawsuit”).

(2) The relevant lawsuit was concluded on August 9, 2016 as a withdrawal of the lawsuit, by the Defendant’s absence on two occasions at the date of pleading of the relevant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The ten-year extinctive prescription of a claim established under a judgment payment order on the Plaintiff’s cause of claim is applicable from the time when the payment order becomes final and conclusive (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 178(2) and 162(1) of the Civil Act). From September 4, 2004, before the ten-year extinctive prescription period from September 1, 2014, when the Defendant became final and conclusive, the fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim is recognized as above.

However, Article 170(1) of the Civil Act provides that a judicial claim shall not have the effect of interrupting prescription in the case of dismissal, dismissal or withdrawal of a lawsuit.