1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order of the Seoul Central District Court 2015Hu351718 claim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was in arrears with the credit card payment of KRW 2,433,528 while using the LG card and was issued with the Samsung Card.

The credit card amount of KRW 1,676,075 was overdue.

B. On May 13, 2005, LG cards and Samsung Card’s credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) were transferred to the Defendant, and the transfer was notified to the Plaintiff around that time.

C. On December 28, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of the instant claim with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 tea351718. On January 26, 2016, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 19,813,507 and delay damages for KRW 4,109,603 among them (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the instant payment order was finalized on August 6, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3 and Eul's evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

(a) In cases of a final payment order, if the payment order is issued, the reason for failure or invalidation, etc. which occurred before the issuance of the payment order has been made may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of requesting

(See Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act. (b)

According to the above facts, the claim of this case is a commercial bond, and is subject to the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Since the payment order of this case was filed on May 13, 2005 with the Plaintiff, the five-year extinctive prescription period from May 13, 2005, which was much more than the five-year extinctive prescription period, the claim of this case was completed prior to the application for the payment order of this case.

C. The Defendant asserted that the period of extinctive prescription against the instant claim is ten years, and that the Defendant was taking measures to interrupt extinctive prescription, such as filing a lawsuit and coordinating debts, but the instant case.