1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the original payment order in the instant case.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 16, 2010, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff with this Court No. 2010 tea667 and received a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 2,407,700 per annum 20% per annum from the day following the service date of the original copy of the above payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized on September 15, 2010.

B. On October 6, 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the subscription to the learning site with the subscription period of 24 months, and the sum of unpaid subscription fees, etc. is KRW 2,407,700.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the instant goods payment liability is subject to the three-year short-term extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and the statute of limitations expired for the instant goods payment liability that occurred three years prior to the date of application for the instant payment order

3. The judgment of the defendant's claim for the amount of the learning paper by the defendant is subject to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and the period of extinctive prescription is three years. In light of the whole purport of the arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, the defendant is acknowledged to have supplied the plaintiff with the learning paper last at the latest around November 2005, and the defendant applied for the payment order of this case on August 16, 2010, which is three years after the expiration of the above period. Thus, the three years prior to the application for the payment order of this case was expired.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the lawsuit of this case, which was filed after the payment order became final and conclusive, is improper, but the defendant's assertion in this part is groundless in that the reason for failure or invalidation of the claim that occurred before the payment order was issued can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order.

4. Conclusion.