1. The Defendant’s acquisition of money against the Plaintiff by Seoul Southern District Court 2014Hu76316 is an executory power.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around January 2011, MEL Co., Ltd. supplied each of the goods to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2011, which supplied each of the goods to the Plaintiff on March 29, 201.

B. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant who acquired the above goods payment claim from MEL applied for the payment order procedure against the Plaintiff on December 16, 2014, 2014, and as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection, the payment order was finalized on January 23, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the extinctive prescription of the above sales proceeds claim that the defendant acquired has expired, compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be dismissed.

The sale price of the above discharge lamps falls under the price for the goods sold by the merchants under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and if the claim is not exercised for three years, it shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription expires. It is reasonable to view that the above goods payment claim can be claimed on March 29, 201 by ELM as a claim without setting a deadline for the payment of the goods.

Therefore, since the extinctive prescription on the claim for the sales proceeds that the Defendant acquired by transfer is already completed upon the lapse of March 29, 2014, as long as the extinctive prescription on the above sales proceeds claim, which served as the basis of the payment order, has already been completed at the time when the payment order was issued, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above payment order on the premise that the claim for the sales proceeds extinguished by prescription

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.