1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,18,919,896 and KRW 498,415,627 from March 19, 2020 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2010, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (the Korea Technology Finance Corporation changed its trade name to the Korea Technology Finance Corporation) filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant, etc. to request the payment of the indemnity amount (Seoul District Court 2010 tea 2603) and received 14% interest per annum from June 29, 2005 to September 28, 2005 as to the Plaintiff jointly and severally and severally, for KRW 501,558 and KRW 39,114,298, and from the following day to September 28, 2005 to the delivery date of the certified copy of each payment order, 16% interest per annum 14% interest per annum from July 29, 2005 to October 28, 2005 to the delivery date of the certified copy of each payment order, 16% interest per annum from the next day to October 16, 2005 to the next day, and 20% interest per annum 14% per annum.

(hereinafter referred to as “prepaid payment order”). (b)

On September 27, 2012, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation transferred claims based on the preceding payment order to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants of the transfer of claims on the same day.

C. As of March 18, 2020, the sum of principal and interest of the above bonds as of March 18, 2020 KRW 1,119,550,796 (= principal principal amount of KRW 498,415,627) and interest of KRW 630,900 and delay damages amount of KRW 620,50,269).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the order to the plaintiff.

(The plaintiff claimed the principal and interest other than the provisional payment). (b)

The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription period of the above claim has expired.

The claim established by a judgment constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription, even if it falls under the short-term extinctive prescription (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and on April 2, 2020, before the lapse of 10 years from May 14, 2010, when the preceding payment order became final and conclusive, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order is apparent in the record, so the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription is groundless.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.