1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2016 Chicago10150, the Court shall decide on October 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After the Defendant received loan claims and credit card use price claims against the Plaintiff, the Defendant applied for payment order against the Plaintiff as Incheon District Court No. 2006 tea 1974 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the above payment order was served on the Plaintiff on February 20, 2006 and confirmed on March 7, 2006.

B. On September 22, 2016, upon the instant payment order, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate related to the Plaintiff’s real estate (Sacheon District Court B; hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that since ten years have passed since March 7, 2006, the payment order of this case became final and conclusive, the defendant's obligation against the plaintiff based on the payment order of this case expired by prescription.

B. However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff prior to the completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim against the Plaintiff, filed an application for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Hu28263 regarding the claim against the Plaintiff, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on December 24, 2015.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant's claim against the plaintiff was extended by the statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations has not yet expired, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the statute of limitations has expired cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.