1. The Defendant’s payment order for the acquisition money case against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2019 by Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019 tea3020 on May 21, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2019, the Defendant filed a request for payment order against the Plaintiff on the following grounds.

On July 26, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained credit cards from C Co., Ltd. and used them.

The above claim of C Co., Ltd. was transferred to D Co., Ltd. on December 18, 2003, to E Co., Ltd. on June 15, 201, to F Co., Ltd. on July 31, 2013, to F Co., Ltd. on December 13, 2018.

As of April 25, 2019, the principal of credit card payments is KRW 1,00,000, and the accrued interest is KRW 3,204,245.

B. Accordingly, on May 21, 2019, the Defendant received an order to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 4,204,245 and KRW 1,00,000 per annum from the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment. The payment order around that time was finalized as it is.

(Seoul Western District Court 2019j30220, hereinafter referred to as the "instant payment order"). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of requesting the payment order.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). B.

In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription, it is reasonable to view that the claim under the instant payment order had already arrived at the latest prior to December 18, 2003 (the first assignment date). Since the Defendant’s application for the instant payment order was filed on May 21, 2019, the claim under the instant payment order had already been extinguished before the application for the instant payment order was filed on May 21, 2019, the five years after the lapse of the period.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.