2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

On October 13, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against the Defendants with this Court No. 2005Da39264, and filed a payment order with this Court on October 13, 2005, stating that “the Defendants jointly and severally provided for KRW 67,810,400 to the Plaintiff, and that “the Defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment.” The payment order was served to the Defendants on October 21, 2005, and became final and conclusive on November 5, 2005.

On February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for compulsory execution based on the above payment order and recovered KRW 5,870,273 out of the same day.

On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the same payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with this court for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the Defendants raised objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, defense as to the completion of extinctive prescription of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff and the defendants are dissatisfied with the completion of extinctive prescription of the goods price claim under the above payment order. Thus, we examine this issue.

The fact that the payment order was finalized on November 5, 2005, and that the plaintiff recovered KRW 5,870,273 out of the amount of the payment order on February 10, 2006. However, the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case only on July 14, 2016, which was ten years after the date of collection from the above collection date. Accordingly, the above goods payment claim expired due to the completion of the statute of limitations, barring special circumstances.

As to the plaintiff's second defense and judgment, the plaintiff re-appeals that the defendants' assertion of the expiration of extinctive prescription is not allowed against the principle of good faith.

The obligor's exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations is also governed by the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, which is the major principle of our civil law.