1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 1, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”), and around October 2007, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, but the Defendant did not pay the construction cost of KRW 52,507,50 on the grounds that there is no dispute between the parties, and barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 52,507,500 and the delay damages therefrom.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant asserted that the claim for the construction price of this case has expired. The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price of this case constitutes “claim for the construction work of the contractor or any other person engaged in the design of the construction work” and thus, if not exercised within three years, the extinctive prescription expires (Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act). However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 21, 2016, which was far more than three years from October 2007, when the construction work of this case was completed, is obvious in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price of this case has already expired.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of prescription of the instant claim for construction price has been extended to 10 years since the Defendant filed an application for payment order against the C Superior Council represented by the Defendant, which became final and conclusive on December 16, 2008.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant was engaged in real estate sales business under the trade name of "Cryman Council", and the plaintiff applied for a payment order (this court No. 2008 tea 12671) against the Cryman Council for the payment of the construction price of this case, and the above payment order becomes final and conclusive on December 16, 2008.

However, the order of payment finalized above is against the C Superior Council, not the defendant, and it cannot be viewed that it naturally extends to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's order of payment finalized is valid.