1. The defendant's judgment of Gwangju District Court 2012 tea9386 has an executory power over the claim for acquisition amount.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 1997, the Dongyang Installment Financing Co., Ltd. loaned a loan of 3.8 million won to B at the annual interest rate of 26%, and the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of B.

B. The defendant was the final transferee by transferring the above credit (hereinafter the claim of this case).

On October 8, 2012, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff by the Gwangju District Court 2012 tea9386, and the payment order was finalized on October 30, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 3 evidence, the purpose of the whole pleading

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of extinctive prescription, the extinctive prescription expired since it is evident that the above payment order was filed after the lapse of five years from the commercial prescription of the instant claim.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that, as the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gaso1047082 decided on September 16, 2010 with respect to B, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was interrupted and extended to 10 years. However, the said lawsuit also was filed after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the instant claim, and thus, the interruption of prescription has no effect.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, it is reasonable for Gwangju District Court to deny compulsory execution based on the executory order of payment order in the case of a claim for transfer money, so the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.