1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the payment order and the whole pleadings, the defendant applied for the payment order against the plaintiff on Aug. 20, 2007 by acquiring credit card claims, such as credit card payments, from EL Card Co., Ltd. on Oct. 24, 2003 for the payment order for the acquisition of the transfer money (hereinafter the "transfer money of this case") against the plaintiff on Aug. 20, 2007. This court is acknowledged that "the plaintiff applied for the payment order for the payment of the transfer money of this case" on the same day from Oct. 25, 2003 to Oct. 27, 2007 (the delivery date of the payment order) to the defendant, and the payment order for the amount calculated at a rate of 17% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment."

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's child B (C) received the above payment order and thus the delivery of the payment order is invalid. However, it is reasonable to view that B at the time had the ability to separate objection to the receipt of the service, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 89Meu9, Feb. 14, 1990). Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case was extinguished due to the completion of the statute of limitations on the plaintiff's assertion that the statute of limitations expired.

In light of the above evidence, the response result of the submission order of financial transaction information to Han Bank Co., Ltd. and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant applied for the above payment order on September 11, 2007 before the lapse of five years from October 4, 2002, which was confirmed as the date of the plaintiff's final repayment, and the above payment order was finalized on September 11, 2007, and ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act, and Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act) have passed thereafter. On May 11, 2017, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the interruption of the extinctive prescription period of the transferred money claim.