1. The loan case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was dated November 17, 2009, for Suwon District Court 2009Da6671.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 11, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 9.5 million from the Plaintiff and prepared a loan certificate stating that it will repay it by June 20, 2009.

B. On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order claiming the payment of the remainder of KRW 7.5 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 2 million paid out of KRW 9.5 million as stated in the above loan certificate, and the payment order was served as the Defendant’s domicile and served on November 26, 2009 by the Defendant, but the payment order was served on November 26, 2009 by the Defendant, but the Defendant did not raise any objection and became final and conclusive on December 11, 2009.

C. On July 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the loan claim stated in the above payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's assertion seeking confirmation of the existence of the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above payment order is with merit, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant did not live in the place where the above payment order was delivered, and it was not delivered, and that there was no loan related to the claim stated in the above payment order.

However, when the document of lawsuit has not been served at the place of service, the document may be delivered to the clerk, employee, etc. who is man of sense (Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In case where the document is delivered to an office clerk, employee, etc., the document will take effect, and it does not take effect when the document is delivered to the person to whom the document was served.

(see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma994, Jan. 14, 2008). Moreover, the Defendant did not submit any evidence as to the alleged facts.

Therefore, the defendant's argument can be accepted.