1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion stated that the extinctive prescription for part of the interest or damages for delay was completed from the debt based on the primary loan certificate in the reference document for reference on April 22, 2015, but this is an assertion after the conclusion of pleadings, and thus, is not separately determined.

On December 27, 2000, the Plaintiff prepared the first loan certificate of this case as to KRW 13,000,000 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 8,000,000, interest of KRW 5,000,000, which was demanded by D to use the loan certificate for the obligation owed by D against the Defendant.

After that, on April 15, 2003, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that only the principal amount of KRW 8,000,000 shall be paid out, among the obligations arising from the said first loan certificate, and the Plaintiff prepared and provided the second loan certificate of this case.

Therefore, the debt based on the instant secondary loan certificate is identical to the debt based on the instant secondary loan certificate, and was reduced as in the instant secondary loan certificate. Since the Defendant performed the debt based on the instant secondary loan certificate to the Plaintiff according to the instant conciliation, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

B. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and in light of the above, it is not sufficient to recognize the first loan certificate of this case and the second loan certificate of this case as the same obligation, solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, No. 6-1, No. 6-2, and No. 7 through No. 11.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit.

① The first loan certificate of this case was drafted on December 27, 200, and the second loan certificate of this case was issued on April 15, 2003.