1. The defendant's payment order for the goods price case No. 2010 tea6479 against the plaintiff was due.

1. A claim for the amount of goods, which is the cause of the claim, was extinguished by prescription after three years from the date of claim.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order should not be allowed.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2010, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff by the Incheon District Court No. 2010 tea6479, Jun. 9, 2010, and received a payment order from the above court that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,574,700 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive on June 30, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Defendant stated in the application for the instant payment order that “the Plaintiff is provided with the children’s learning site from the Defendant for the period from June 15, 2004 to two weeks from June 24, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 513,600 out of the subscription price of KRW 2,088,300, and did not pay KRW 1,574,700.”

C. The Defendant filed an application for a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim with the title of execution of the instant payment order issued by Incheon District Court 2016TTT29588, and received a decision of citing it on December 9, 2016.

The defendant sent his children's learning site to the plaintiff from June 2004 to September 5, 2006 and agreed to receive the subscription fees every month.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The last day of the dispatch of the study site was September 5, 2006, and the monthly payment was agreed to receive the subscription fee, and the instant payment order was filed on June 1, 2010, which was later three years after the date of the issuance of the order, and thus, the prescription period had already expired before the application for the instant payment order.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should be rejected.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.