1. Compulsory execution based on the payment order for the Defendant’s claim, such as this court’s loan 2014 tea198 against the Plaintiffs is the compulsory execution.

1. According to the evidence Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiffs on October 10, 2014 as a claim for loans, etc., and the court issued a payment order on that day, and the above payment order became final and conclusive around that day. 2. The plaintiffs asserted that the claim based on the payment order of this case was extinguished by prescription. Thus, according to the evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the date when part of the claim of this case was repaid was confirmed as of May 29, 2009, and the application for the payment order of this case was filed five years thereafter, barring special circumstances, the claim of this case was completed before the above payment order was filed.

As to this, the defendant first obtained the satisfaction after the compulsory execution under the above payment order has been completed, so that there is no interest in filing a lawsuit against the above payment order. However, according to the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, it is acknowledged that the defendant applied for compulsory execution against corporeal movables pursuant to the above payment order and completed it. However, inasmuch as the defendant also has been repaid only part of the claim of this case due to the above compulsory execution, it cannot be deemed that there is no interest in filing a lawsuit for the exclusion of the above payment order. Next, although the plaintiffs approved the debt of this case and the prescription has been suspended by the plaintiffs, or waiver of the prescription interest has been made by the defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above argument of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above argument of the defendant.