2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant purchased 578,000 won visibility from the Plaintiff at a visual store operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant for the payment order claiming reimbursement of the foregoing visual value, and upon receiving an order to rectify address from the court to the Defendant, the above payment order procedure was implemented as the claim for the price of the instant goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion shall pay 578,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion was revoked since the defendant purchased visibility from the plaintiff without the consent of the person with parental authority who is a legal representative when he is a minor.

In addition, the above visual payment claim has expired by prescription.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant was a minor at the time of purchasing visibility from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion that the act of a minor without the legal representative's consent is revoked

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant purchased the visibility in 1999 and that according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted that the Defendant purchased the visibility in 199.

The defendant asserts that he purchased visibility around 1997.

As the plaintiff's assertion, the visibility was sold in 1999.

Even if it is not exercised for three years, the extinctive prescription shall expire if it is not exercised for three years for the consideration of products and goods sold by producers and merchants at the latest.

(Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act). In 2003, the extinctive prescription of visual price claim has expired, and the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on November 15, 2007, after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, pursuant to Article 472(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.