1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the payment order No. 2015 tea7016 against the Plaintiff is denied.

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the underlying facts, or when comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul District Court 95Da32077, and the above court rendered a judgment accepting the defendant's claim on Nov. 7, 1995. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff as the Incheon District Court 2015Da7016 on Aug. 3, 2015 for an extension of the extinctive prescription period (However, the defendant stated the number of the former case as the Seoul District Court 95Da32053 on Aug. 12, 2015 (it appears to be a clerical error in Seoul District Court 95Da32077) and the above court stated the payment order on Aug. 12, 2015 (hereinafter "the above case").

2. According to the above facts finding, the Defendant applied for the instant payment order on August 3, 2015, which was ten years after the lapse of ten years from November 7, 1995, which was the final date of the Seoul District Court Decision 95Da32077, which became final and conclusive. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of goods has expired by prescription.

Therefore, since a claim for the price of goods, which was the cause of the claim for the payment order of this case, has expired by prescription before the application for the payment order of this case, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.