1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, ‘creditor' is considered as ‘Plaintiff' and ‘debtor' as ‘Defendant'). 【No dispute exists, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the five-year extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has expired. 2) There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the instant loan claim is a commercial claim, and the instant payment order is clearly recorded in the record that the application was filed on September 21, 2016, which was more than five years from September 29, 2006, the due date for payment of the loan claim. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant payment order had already expired.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that, first of all, the Defendant approved the instant loan obligation on October 7, 201 and applied for the instant payment order before the lapse of five years thereafter. However, as seen earlier, the statute of limitations expired on September 29, 201 after the lapse of five years from September 29, 2006. As such, this part of the claim cannot be accepted, since the interruption of the statute of limitations has become effective once the statute of limitations has expired, since the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan becomes final and conclusive under the bankruptcy procedure, the statute of limitations has not been exceeded ten years from August 27, 2007, and the statute of limitations has not elapsed since the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan became final and conclusive under the bankruptcy procedure. A) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as stated in Articles 2 through 3, and the entire purport of pleadings, the Defendant, upon application for discharge decision by the competent district court No. 20147, Feb. 6, 2007; and the Defendant, upon application for discharge order No. 1205784.27