1. The Plaintiff’s Defendant based on the payment order for the loan case dated April 28, 2010 (2010 tea 730).

1. The fact that the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against D on April 28, 2010 for a loan payment order against D on May 19, 2010 that "D shall pay to the Plaintiff 3,797,812 won and 2,655,480 won per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the Plaintiff to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the above payment order of this case"), which became final and conclusive on May 19, 2010; D shall have died on October 26, 2010 and his father E, the sole inheritor, inherited on January 10, 201, and accepted the payment order of D on April 27, 201 (the former Gun District Court Decision 2011Mo15, Nov. 15, 2015), and the purport of the above payment order of which was accepted by the Defendant as a whole, or as a whole, on May 14, 2010.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of this case against the Defendant, who is a succession of D in succession for the interruption of the prescription of a claim based on the payment order in this case, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless since the Defendant received a final approval judgment inherited by the former inheritor E, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the majority opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da232316 Decided October 18, 2018, the lawsuit for the interruption of prescription as in this case does not have the effect under the substantive law other than the interruption of the prescription of the claim established by the preceding judgment. Thus, the Defendant’s claim cannot be deliberated in this lawsuit, and therefore, it is not reasonable in itself (if the Defendant has a reason to exclude the executory power of the payment order in this case, it is inevitable to institute a separate lawsuit for objection). Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case is reasonable.