1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts following the facts are found to be without dispute between the parties, or recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and Gap 9-1 and 2:

A. The Daejeon District Court 96 tea2787 against the Defendant: “The Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The Defendant shall pay C the price for the goods (health assistance food purchased from D's business members) and its delay damages (hereinafter “D's health assistance food payments”) KRW 4.68,00,000,000 and its delay damages.” The instant payment order was finalized on May 23, 1996.

B. On June 10, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired the claim under the instant payment order from C, and received 46,740 won in the compulsory execution procedure for corporeal movables on July 2, 1998 after obtaining the inheritance execution clause.

On the other hand, the defendant remitted to the plaintiff, 50,000 won on December 29, 200, 2000 won on January 9, 2004, and 30,00 won on December 26, 2005, respectively.

C. On September 25, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) based on the enforcement title of the instant payment order on September 25, 2008, the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court (2008TTTT) received the Defendant, the garnishee, the Korea Community Cooperative Federation, the Saemaul Depository, and the claim attachment and collection order against the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant collection order”); and (b) served the Defendant on October 10, 2008.

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. The plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit in this case was filed to prevent the completion of the statute of limitations, and it is examined ex officio as to whether there is a benefit in protecting the rights of the lawsuit in this case.

B. Article 165(2) of the Civil Act does not apply to a payment order finalized at the time of enforcement of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990; Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002); and the original period of extinctive prescription of the claim is likewise applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da51908, Nov. 27, 2008). The claim that the Plaintiff acquired from C is a consideration for the goods sold by the merchants by the merchants (see Article 163 of the Civil Act).