A. On April 30, 199, the Defendant, engaged in the visual sales business, sold 298,000 won visibility to the Plaintiff, and agreed to receive the price in ten-month installments.

The plaintiff did not pay the installment amount and lost the benefit of September 5, 199.

B. On May 13, 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of the foregoing visual sales proceeds and damages for delay thereof with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014 tea15061, and on May 22, 2014, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the date of full payment order to “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 1,173,712 won and its 298,000 won per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the date of full payment.”

On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was served with the above payment order and raised an objection thereto, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on August 1, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s claim for the purchase of goods against the Plaintiff is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years for the price of goods sold by the merchant (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act). The Defendant applied for the instant payment order on May 13, 2014 after three years from September 5, 1999, the due date for the payment of the above purchase price claim. Thus, the above claim for the purchase price of goods had already expired prior to the application for the instant payment order.

3. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 600,00 to the Defendant on October 23, 2014 as the price for goods; and (b) agreed to pay the balance on November 23, 2014 after first paying KRW 449,00; and (c) the Plaintiff renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription.

Although the Defendant expressed “extinctive prescription interruption,” the extinctive prescription has already been completed and determined as a waiver of the extinctive prescription benefit. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted as above.