1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff in the case became final and conclusive upon receiving a payment order against the defendants, and again filed an application for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Accordingly, the defendants are the cases in which the defendants raised an objection and converted into litigation.

2. According to the defendants' defenses of extinctive prescription and the plaintiff's second defense, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed an application for the payment order with the Busan District Court 2005Da39264 against the defendants for the payment of goods priceing to KRW 67,810,40, and delay damages therefor. The above court issued the payment order to the defendants, which became final and conclusive on November 5, 2005 because the defendants did not dispute the delivery of the order, and the plaintiff filed an application for compulsory execution (for compulsory sale by corporeal movables) against the above payment order and collected KRW 5,870,273 out of the amount of the payment order on February 10, 206, and the plaintiff collected KRW 5,870,273 among the amount of the payment order on July 14, 2016. However, if the plaintiff applied for the payment order under this case's circumstances, barring special circumstances asserted by the plaintiff, the claim for the payment order should be deemed extinguished due to the completion of prescription.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendants' assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription is not allowed against the principle of good faith.

Accordingly, according to the results of the fact-finding on Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-2, and the fact-finding on the credit information company of this court, according to the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiff requested the collection of claims on February 2, 2013. The above company sent a reminder to the defendants on several occasions, but the mail was returned all. The above company suspended its collection activities on September 2013. The above company was suspended from its collection activities on October 30, 2014 to November 12, 2014.