1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment with the Daegu District Court 2001 tea817 to claim payment of drug price with the Defendants and D, and received payment order from the above court that “the Defendants and D shall calculate the amount of KRW 138,098,020 to the Plaintiff at the rate of 25% per annum from the day after the original copy of the above payment order was served to the day of full payment.”

B. The above payment order was served on the Defendants on February 12, 2001, and was finalized on February 27, 2001.

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the principal of the claim under the above payment order is KRW 88,098,020, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to suspend extinctive prescription of the claim under the above payment order.

[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the obligations under the above payment order, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendants’ defenses 1) defenses that the statute of limitations expired for the obligations under the instant payment order. The Plaintiff’s defenses are proved to have expired. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on February 4, 2016, which was ten years after the date when the above payment order became final and conclusive. As such, the claim under the above payment order was extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. The Defendants’ defenses are reasonable. 2) As to this, the Plaintiff’s seizure of corporeal movables owned by the Defendants on June 30, 2006 or May 8, 2008, which were ten years after the date when the payment order in this case became final and conclusive. Thus, the statute of limitations has re-extinctive prescription interrupted.

It is not enough to recognize that the Plaintiff seized corporeal movables owned by the Defendants on June 30, 2006 only with the descriptions of evidence No. 1, 2006, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(b).