1. The Defendant’s order for payment of the purchase price case against the Plaintiff is issued by the Jyang-si District Court of South Korea, 2016 tea372.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for payment of the purchase price, and issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,350,362 and KRW 390,000 per annum 24% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

B. The Plaintiff received the instant payment order on February 16, 2016, but thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an objection on March 3, 2016 and dismissed the objection, and the instant payment order was finalized as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased lusul and al. from the defendant on July 29, 2005 the lusul and al. The defendant's claim for the price of goods was completed, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be dismissed.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff purchased yellow dynasium, al. from the defendant who was a distributor on July 29, 2005, and that the payment order of this case was requested on January 18, 2016, which was three years thereafter.

According to this, since the defendant's claim for the price of goods against the plaintiff has already expired the extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code before the application for the payment order of this case, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be rejected.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable.