1. The defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order of the 3196 case against the plaintiff in this court is denied.

1. Fact-finding, the Defendant sought against the Plaintiff a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of delayed damages of KRW 1,183,120 and KRW 360,00 per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of complete payment, and the payment order became final and conclusive in this court.

2. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). In the lawsuit of objection against the claim, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection against the claim should be in accordance with the principle of sharing the burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that his claim has expired, the defendant is responsible for proving the cause of the claim and the existence of the claim.

In this case, according to the records, the defendant's claim for the price of the goods against the plaintiff was due to a non-sale as of June 7, 2000 and the last due date for the payment of the claim was made on April 7, 2001. Thus, the above claim is subject to the expiration of three years as the price for the goods sold by the merchant under Article 163 of the Civil Act. Thus, the defendant's claim for the payment of the price of the goods was filed only on October 7, 2019, for which the above payment order has much expired, since the defendant's claim for the payment of the price of goods was not proved by the grounds, etc. for the interruption of prescription as to the above claim

I would like to say.