1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on April 8, 2013, No. 2013j368 of the Daegu District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order (Tgu District Court Decision 2013 tea 368), claiming against the Plaintiff for the claim for construction price of KRW 9 million and for the payment of damages for delay thereof, and the said court issued a payment order citing it on April 8, 2013, and the said order became final and conclusive on July 11, 2013.

B. The grounds for filing an application in the above payment order are as follows: “The plaintiff completed the construction work upon receiving a sewage for construction work from the defendant on December 2, 2006, and the defendant prepared and issued to the plaintiff a letter that the remaining six million won of the construction work price will be paid within the earlier date until March 31, 2007, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction price of nine million won and damages for delay.”

C. In fact, on December 21, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared and ordered to the Defendant a letter of payment (1) of the same content as the above grounds for the application.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant's claim on the payment order against the plaintiff is subject to a short-term extinctive prescription of three years for the claim on the payment order for sewage with the claim on the payment order for the construction price. Of these, three million won in part has expired on April 1, 2010 after three years have elapsed since March 31, 2007 at the latest, and the remaining six million won in part has not been determined after March 31, 2007, and the extinctive prescription has expired on April 1, 2010 after three years have elapsed.

B. If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case, which is based on the above claim as the claim claim on the ground of the extinction of prescription of the above claim, is reasonable.

C. As to this, the Defendant received the original copy of the payment order, and did not make a defense for the completion of extinctive prescription at the time, and the payment order was legally finalized, the Defendant shall raise an objection.