1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed 2.1 million won from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) at the interest rate of 43% per annum and five months per annum.

B. On March 29, 2012, D transferred the claim for the loans to the Plaintiff to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and notified the Plaintiff of the fact of transferring the loans around that time.

Since then, on October 16, 2015, E transferred the claim for the above loan against the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim at that time.

C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order of the acquisition amount under Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019 tea22867. On April 4, 2019, the said court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 9,514,789 and KRW 2,100,000 per annum 24% per annum from October 17, 2015 to the date of final delivery of the original copy of the payment order, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant, which was recognized in the said payment order, was finalized on April 25, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts established prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, it is clear that the obligation to take over the instant case is a commercial claim, and the period of extinctive prescription of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applied, and five years have passed since December 23, 2002, which is the due date.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the compulsory execution based on the decision of the payment order of this case shall be dismissed, as the obligation of this case was already extinguished due to the completion of extinctive prescription.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion not only renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription upon confirmation of F's credit recovery support, but also extinctive prescription upon the application for E's payment order.