1. The Defendant’s order for payment was issued against the Defendant’s Plaintiff at the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court, 2018 next 923.

In fact, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff is the construction cost claim from October 2013 to August 2014, 2014.

The defendant filed an application with this court on October 1, 2018 for the payment order.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 6's statements, and significant facts to this court

2. Determination

A. A claim for construction price shall expire if it is not exercised within three years (Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act). The expiration of prescription period shall expire from the time it can be exercised, and as such, the period of prescription shall expire from the time when the claim for construction price has been completed, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, or when the completed object has been delivered, unless it is otherwise stipulated by the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for construction cost as claimed has expired after the lapse of August 31, 2017, which was three years from August 2014, and the statute of limitations expired.

I would like to say.

B. The Defendant suspended the statute of limitations on the non-party C, whose spouse was the Plaintiff’s spouse, with the approval of the obligation.

One of the arguments, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim to extinguish prescription cannot be allowed as abuse of right against the principle of good faith, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such circumstance.

3. If the Defendant’s claim for construction price was extinguished due to the completion of the statute of limitations, compulsory execution based on the above payment order is not allowed without examining the other grounds for objection alleged by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.