1. The defendant's order against the plaintiff is based on the original copy of the payment order in the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Hu116420.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff to issue a payment order for the acquisition money case (Seoul Central District Court 2015Hu116420) and the payment order became final and conclusive on June 27, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The claim that was the cause of the claim for the payment order of this case is about the amount equivalent to 3,00,000 won of loans, interest rate of loans and interest rate of 39% per annum on February 28, 2002 against the plaintiff of a social loan company Apropha, and the amount equivalent to 2,92,300 won of loans and interest rate of 39% per annum from May 10, 2002 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the claim of this case”), and the amount equivalent to 39% per annum on the ground that the defendant acquired them through a propha loan company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the five-year extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was expired and then the application for the payment order of this case was made, the enforcement force of the payment order should be excluded.

B. On May 3, 2007, the Defendant asserted that the period of prescription has been interrupted, since he applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on May 3, 2007 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2007 tea 44040, which is the transferor of the instant claim.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine the completion of extinctive prescription of the instant claim.

The claim of this case is a loan claim of a lending company, the extinctive prescription of which is five years.

The fact that the instant payment order was filed on May 19, 2015 is as seen earlier. Therefore, even as of February 28, 2007, when the payment period of the instant claim was due, it is apparent that the instant payment order was filed after the lapse of more than five years thereafter.

Therefore, it is true.