1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff was made based on the payment order dated March 17, 2009 by the Seoul Northern District Court.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or as a whole together with the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

A. On March 12, 2009, the defendant (the former trade name: C) applied for a payment order against the plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2009Guj 4937, and on March 17, 2009, the above court issued a payment order stating that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 2,54,316 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the copy of the application for the payment order is served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter "the payment order of this case"). The above payment order was served on the plaintiff on May 11, 2009 and became final and conclusive as of May 26, 2009.

B. On July 5, 2019, the Defendant, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, filed an application for a seizure and collection order on the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against D Co., Ltd., E, and the Industrial Bank of Korea as the Busan District Court 2019TT49, and the said court accepted the Defendant’s application and issued a collection order on July 10, 2019.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's transferee's claim based on the payment order of this case had already expired by prescription.

The facts that the payment order of this case was finalized on May 26, 2009 are as seen earlier, and there is no reason or evidence to deem that the extinctive prescription of the above payment claim was suspended within 10 years thereafter.

Therefore, there is no circumstance or evidence to deem that the Defendant’s claim for the amount of money taken over based on the instant payment order expired prior to the seizure of the above claim, and otherwise, the Plaintiff renounced the prescription benefit.

Ultimately, since the defendant's claim for the amount of money taken over has already expired, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.