1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On August 31, 2016, this Court has regard to cases where a request for suspension of compulsory execution was made by this Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 1998, the administrator B filed a payment order against the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 1,711,450 as credit card payment and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from July 28, 1998 to the date of full payment (the purchase price of goods at the Ulsan District Court 9j2005, Ulsan District Court 9.205). The above payment order was finalized on August 14, 199.

(hereinafter the above payment order is "the instant payment order" and the bonds based on the above payment order are "the instant bonds". (b)

The claim of this case was transferred in sequence to the defendant, CheongNC, C, D, C, ISP C, C, C, C, EsP Capital Loans, CS loan limited liability companies, DM asset management, and DM asset management. The notice given to the plaintiff was given according to the above assignment of claims.

C. On the other hand, on July 28, 2014, the CSSS loan limited liability company filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the instant claim against the Plaintiff by Seoul Southern District Court 2014Da506506 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) and reached the Plaintiff on September 15, 2014, and the instant decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on September 30, 2014 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.

On August 19, 2016, the Defendant received an execution clause succeeding to the decision on the instant performance recommendation.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence of Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 through 9, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the ten-year period has elapsed since the date when the payment order of this case became final and conclusive, enforcement based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should not be allowed. 2) The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since it was based on the payment order of this case before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

B. As examined in the above 1. Paragraph 1., this case.