1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 23, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a equipment lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant equipment lease agreement”) and leased equipment from the Defendant.

The above lease agreement is to pay KRW 500,000,00 if it is impossible to do work due to on-site circumstances, on June 23, 1998; October 23, 1998; equipment name dump trucks; registration number C; and equipment for normal operation; and KRW 3.5 million if it is difficult to do work due to on-site circumstances.

B. The Defendant issued a payment order to the Plaintiff on July 4, 2002, which was served on the Plaintiff on July 15, 2002 and became final and conclusive on July 30, 2002, with the delivery of the payment order from January 21, 199 to January 21, 199 to the delivery date of the payment order. The Defendant: (a) paid the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum; and (b) paid the Plaintiff 25% interest per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the payment order; and (c) issued the payment order on July 4, 2002.

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

A person shall be appointed.

C. On December 23, 2008, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction against the vehicles (D) owned by the Plaintiff with the title of execution of the instant payment order on December 23, 2008, and completed on December 30, 2009.

On April 4, 2013, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the farmland owned by the Plaintiff (Seoul High-gun E) with the title to execute the instant payment order on April 4, 2013, and concluded on May 27, 2014.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay rent based on the instant equipment lease agreement was the initial date of May 27, 2014, and three years have elapsed since the said obligation was completed, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction with the title of execution of the above payment order with regard to the claim for lease of equipment of this case, and thereafter, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction with the above payment order as the title of execution.