1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the claim is that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted, since the acquisition bond of this case against the Defendant (hereinafter “the bonds of this case”) had already been completed at the five-year extinctive prescription around May 17, 2009, since it had already been completed around May 17, 209.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the payment order of this case is only for the interruption of prescription of a claim based on the prior final judgment, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is contrary to res judicata of the prior

B. The judgment of the court below and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on December 11, 2009 against the Seoul Southern District Court 2009Gaso23675, and rendered a favorable judgment on December 11, 2009 (the closure of pleadings on the same day). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order on November 19, 2019 for the interruption of the statute of limitations of claims based on the above prior final and conclusive judgment that was acquired from the non-party company, may be recognized either as a dispute between the parties, or as a whole, by taking account of the respective entries in subparagraphs 2 through 5 and the entire purport

Therefore, the fact that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was completed on May 17, 2009 is not a ground that occurred after the closure of pleadings in the previous final judgment, and thus, the forfeiture of rights or blocking by res judicata effect of the previous final judgment. Therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground for objection to the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the previous final judgment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is deemed to have been asserted that the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case had expired before the application for the payment order of this case after the closure of pleadings in the final and conclusive judgment, the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment shall run ten years from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive, and ten years from the time when the defendant rendered