1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C (Down 302) owned by it, with a deposit of KRW 60 million and a period of two years.

Since then, the defendant was residing in the above building as the lessee, but the auction of the above building was conducted, and the defendant did not recover part of the deposit for lease.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff prepared to the Defendant a document stating that he would repay the obligation to return the deposit in South Korea with the title of “written confirmation” and “loan”, etc. on several occasions. On April 11, 2006, the Plaintiff would have repaid 26,200,000 won remaining after the auction to E (E’s spouse) for this year.

Around March 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order stating that “26,200,000 won and damages for delay from April 11, 2006 to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order was finalized on June 4, 2015.

(Seoul Central District Court 2015j7230 Payment Order for Refund of Lease Deposit, hereinafter referred to as the "Payment Order in this case"). 【The grounds for recognition ] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Since the payment order of the Plaintiff’s assertion is issued on the claim to return the deposit the extinctive prescription of which has expired, compulsory execution should not be conducted on this basis.

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant payment order was filed on March 201, 2015, where 10 years have not elapsed since April 11, 2006, when the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate to the Defendant’s spouse, and as such, the Defendant’s claim for the refund of the deposit was not completed, and the Defendant’s defense pointing this out has merit.

The defendant and the defendant's spouse form a community, and the contents of the loan certificate are related to the obligation to refund the deposit, so the above loan certificate's creditor is the defendant's spouse.