1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the decision of this case's payment order for interruption of prescription violated jurisdiction and should have been rejected as there was no interest in the application due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription period. However, the payment order was issued and the original copy was served. Although the service of the original copy of the payment order was not effective due to the illegality of the service of the original copy of the payment order, the payment order became final and conclusive on the external basis of the above objection, the plaintiff asserts that he sought the exclusion of executive force based on the above grounds.

As to this, the defendant raises a defense to the effect that the lawsuit of objection to the claim of this case seeking the exclusion of executory power is unlawful, since the payment order cannot become an effective executory title because the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case is invalid because it is unlawful.

A lawsuit of demurrer against a claim (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act) refers to a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of executory power by asserting the substantive reasons as to a claim indicated in the executive title, such as a final judgment finalized by a debtor, etc.

An order for payment has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when there is no objection, withdrawal of an objection, or a decision to dismiss an objection becomes final and conclusive (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the service of the original of the payment order is to be duly served in order to become final and conclusive, if the service of the original of the payment order is invalid due to illegality, it cannot be deemed that the valid title exists, and even if the service of the original of the payment order is invalid due to the illegality, it cannot be deemed that the valid title exists