A. On July 29, 2002, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as Daegu District Court 2002 tea18026, and received the payment order from the above court (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on September 6, 2002.

B. On June 24, 2019, the Defendant seized the movable owned by the Plaintiff to Daegu District Court C based on the instant payment order.

C. The Defendant did not receive any reimbursement from the Plaintiff after the instant payment order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including a branch number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant claim”) was extinguished by the expiration of the statute of limitations from September 6, 2002, which was the date on which the instant payment order became final and conclusive, to September 7, 2012, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1) filed multiple requests for the seizure and the name of the property, and the Defendant received the Daegu District Court 2018TTTTTT 7081 based on the instant payment order based on the instant payment order, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable. 2) The Defendant filed a request for an explanation of the Plaintiff’s property with the Daegu District Court 2014KaKao1657, and the Plaintiff’s claim for an explanation of property against the Plaintiff was not disputed, and there was no dispute regarding the Plaintiff’s claim for the deposit against the Plaintiff’s Daegu District Court 2018TTT 7081, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for the seizure and collection order was issued to the Daegu District

However, after the extinctive prescription of the instant claim has already been completed, the fact that the attachment and collection order of the instant claim, and the fact that the attachment of the movable was effected is apparent from the calendar point. Thus, extinctive prescription is recognized as longer because the said claim has been extinguished after the completion