1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2013, the Defendant lent a total of 227,000,000 Japanese currency to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a loan payment order as Seoul Southern District Court 2015 tea11604, and the said payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) became final and conclusive on September 22, 2015 because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the said payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, upon dissolution on March 24, 2016 and loss of legal capacity, the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff is entirely extinguished, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the instant payment order shall not be allowed. 2) Even if a registration for the completion of liquidation of a juristic person has been made, insofar as there are claims, the liquidation affairs are not completed, and therefore, it shall continue to exist within the scope of the liquidation juristic person.

(3) According to the original copy of the corporate register attached to the application for change of the cause of claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da2528, Jun. 18, 1968; 99Da66427, 73371, Feb. 11, 2003). According to the original copy of the corporate register attached to the application for change of the cause of claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da6427, Oct. 19, 2016). The defendant registered dissolution due to the resolution of dissolution of the general meeting of shareholders as of February 29, 2016; and the registration of completion of liquidation due to completion of liquidation as of September 15, 2016, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da6427, 7371, Feb. 11, 2003).