1. The defendant's decision is based on the payment order issued on September 7, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired each of the following claims against the Defendant from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (However, the amount calculated as of August 9, 2015, the sum of the accrued interest and the total amount; hereinafter “each of the instant claims”). The Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims around that time.

A

B. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order seeking the payment of each of the instant claims under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 tea198241.

The above court accepted this and issued a payment order on September 7, 2015 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), which was served on the Defendant on September 18, 2015, and became final and conclusive on October 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff applied for a payment order to claim payment after the lapse of ten years from the date of the acquisition of the claim, each of the claims in this case expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order in this case should be rejected.

According to the above facts, each of the claims in this case was established after the lapse of 10 years from May 13, 2005, which is the date of the Defendant’s acquisition of the claim, which the Plaintiff claims as the prescription point, barring any special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the period of prescription has been interrupted by approving the debt on November 30, 2010.

However, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (e.g., a request for debt readjustment and a promise) required by the defendant as evidence cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

According to the appraiser B's appraisal results, the writing recorded in each of the above documentary evidence, such as the Plaintiff's signature, seems to be different from the Plaintiff's writing.

Each of the above documents is accompanied by a copy of the plaintiff's resident registration certificate (No. 3).