1. The Defendant’s acquisition of money (Seoul Western District Court 2016 tea 8808) against the Plaintiff is executory of the case.

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant acquired the claim for the loan (hereinafter "claim for the loan of this case") against the plaintiff on March 31, 2004, and applied for a payment order under the Seoul Western District Court 2016j.8808 on January 27, 2016. The plaintiff did not file an objection, and the plaintiff did not pay damages for delay at KRW 7,569,70,363 on KRW 7,50,70,000 from the day following the delivery of the original original payment order of this case to the full payment order of KRW 15% on a yearly basis (hereinafter "the payment order of this case"). The defendant received the payment order of this case from the former District Court 2016ta31799 and made a decision on the seizure and collection of the claim of this case to the plaintiff's superior account, and the defendant can recognize the facts from the deposit account under the name of the plaintiff agricultural cooperative.

According to the above facts, the loans of this case have already been completed before the application for the payment order of this case was filed, and the payment order of this case has no res judicata effect, and the absence and extinction of the claim can be disputed even after the non-existence of the claim becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case for which the extinctive prescription has expired cannot be permitted. The defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from August 25, 2016 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 25, 2016 to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.