청구이의
1. The Defendant’s payment order of the Suwon District Court was based on the Defendant’s order for the acquisition money case 2016 tea, 699.
1. Upon examining the purport of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 7, the defendant, on October 24, 2003, transferred 1,767,00 won credit card price claim against the plaintiff and interest or delay damages claim (hereinafter "C Bonds of this case"), 1,525,417 won, and interest or delay damages claim (hereinafter "D Card Bonds of this case") from D Co., Ltd. 1, 205, 200, 30% from the day following the issuance of the above D Card No. 2, 199 to September 30, 199, 200, 30% from the day of the above D Card No. 2, 196, 30% from the day of the above issuance to the court of 9.2, 30% from the day of the above issuance to September 20, 2999.
2. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed, since the claim of this case C and D Card was far more than five years after the application of the payment order of this case, the expiration of the extinctive prescription of this case was already extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the reason for failure or invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. Supreme Court Decision 2010Da1282 Decided June 24, 2010. < Amended by Act No. 10388, Jun. 24, 2010>