1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

On October 10, 2003, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2003Da38434, and received an order from the above court to pay the Plaintiff 4.2 million won and 3.5 million won among them to the Plaintiff at a rate of 60% per annum from October 10, 2003 to the date of full payment. The above payment order was served to the Defendant on November 5, 2003, but the Defendant did not raise any objection and became final and conclusive as it was.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order.” On December 23, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff regarding the instant payment order, and Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment accepting the Defendant’s claim on April 7, 2014.

(2013da53127). The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on November 6, 2014 in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Na6273, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments] The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground for claim was applied for a re-payment order to suspend the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the payment order of this case. The defendant is obligated to perform the obligation under the payment order of this case to the plaintiff.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, the court of first instance, in the lawsuit of objection filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, is difficult to view the Defendant as the Defendant’s obligor on April 7, 2014, and, even if the Defendant is a debtor, the court rendered a ruling accepting the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the obligation should be deemed to have been fully repaid, and the court of second instance, in which the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the court of second instance borrowed the loan from the Plaintiff on November 6, 2014.