1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 9, 1998, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the loan amounting to KRW 3,000,000,000, which was determined by Korea Light Bank on April 9, 1999.

(hereinafter “instant loan claim”). (b)

On February 14, 2003, a mutual savings bank promotional mutual savings bank acquired the above loan claims through a limited liability company specializing in Korean financial system, and on April 13, 2004, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff to the effect that "the plaintiff shall pay to the above savings bank 6,173,241 won and 3,560,165 won delay damages for 3,560,165 won" from the above court (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The above judgment was finalized on May 18, 2004.

C. On June 15, 2011, the Defendant received the instant loan claim from the Promotion Mutual Savings Bank, and applied for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea9051 for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and issued a payment order on March 13, 2014 to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant KRW 13,418,391, and damages for delay for KRW 3,523,555,” and the said payment order was finalized on July 5, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the statute of limitations for loans of this case expired after the lapse of five-year commercial extinctive prescription.

However, the promotion of mutual savings banks had suspended the prescription by filing a lawsuit against the plaintiff before the completion of the statute of limitations for the loans of this case. Since the statute of limitations for the bonds established by the judgment is 10 years, the statute of limitations for the loans of this case became ten years after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

In addition, the payment order of this case is ten years ago, which is the extinctive prescription period of the loan claim of this case.