1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was the final and conclusive payment order for the loan case No. 2013 tea 15099.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 2001, the Plaintiff borrowed 7 million won from the Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd.

B. On November 21, 2002, the Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the above loans against the Plaintiff by Jeju District Court Decision 2002Gaso85896, and the decision of performance recommendation was finalized on December 28, 2002.

C. On February 25, 2013, the Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd. applied for a payment order to the Defendant as the court 2013 tea15099, and the instant payment order was finalized on May 14, 2013.

On the other hand, the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the future savings bank, and the defendant was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee, and the execution clause to succeed to the payment order of this case was granted to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-3

2. As to the allegations by the parties, the Defendant asserts that the payment order was received for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the above loan claims after the decision of performance recommendation was rendered with the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, the Plaintiff is asserting that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claims had already been completed before the application for the payment order

In light of the above facts, according to the above facts, the extinctive prescription on December 28, 2012, which was 10 years after the date when the above decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive, shall be deemed to have expired as of December 28, 2012, which was 10 years after the date when the above decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is justified, since the plaintiff has no res judicata effect on the

3. Therefore, we accept the claim of this case.