1. The defendant's order against the plaintiff is based on the original payment order of the Seoul Central District Court 2015Hu196789.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant acquired credit card payment claims from MCA Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “new bank”) against the Plaintiff.

B. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking the payment of the acquisition amount against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 tea196789.

The above court issued a payment order on September 14, 2015, and the payment order was finalized on October 13, 2015.

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

2. The judgment of the new bank and the Plaintiff’s credit card use agreement constitute a commercial activity engaged in credit or other gold transactions as defined in Article 46 subparag. 8 of the Commercial Act, and thus, a credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff of the new bank applies the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

Since the above credit card payment claim came due around 2003 and the payment order was applied on August 19, 2015, it would eventually be deemed that the credit card payment claim was extinguished by the completion of prescription.

Therefore, since there is no credit card payment claim against the plaintiff subject to the payment order, compulsory execution based on the payment order against the plaintiff should be denied.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion