2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserted that the loan claims on the above payment order have been completed ten years after the extinctive prescription period, and sought non-permission of compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above payment order. However, according to the purport of Eul evidence 1 (Search for Case), Eul evidence 2-1 (Decision of seizure and collection order), Eul evidence 2-2 (Case Screening), Eul evidence 4 (Attachment Order of Attachment of Movables), and Eul evidence 5 (Attachment Order of Attachment of Movables), and the whole purport of pleadings, the defendant was acknowledged to have suspended the seizure and collection order on October 30, 201 based on the original copy of the above payment order, as Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch C, on September 3, 2009, as the same court Nos. 2009T1805, which was the same court No. 2016, Aug. 9, 2016, which became final and conclusive as a movable property under each of the above subparagraphs 16, 2017.

Finally, since the statute of limitations has run again on March 17, 2017, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the claim of the loan under the above payment order has expired, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition because there is no reason.