1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff leased the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Studio 307 to the defendant at KRW 700,000 for the monthly rent around August 31, 2005.

The plaintiff asserts that even though the defendant leased and used the above studio from August 31, 2005 to March 5, 2006, the plaintiff did not pay 3,760,000 won in total, including monthly rent, management fee, and public charges.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above claim is a claim to which the short-term extinctive prescription is applied, and that the extinctive prescription has expired.

Pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription of a claim for the payment of rent and other money for a period of not more than one year is complete if it is not exercised for three years. If it is not exercised for three years with a claim for monthly rent, management fee, public imposts, etc. alleged by the plaintiff, the extinctive prescription is complete.

The Plaintiff’s application for the instant payment order on February 12, 2015, which was three years after the due date for payment of the above bonds, is apparent in the record. As such, the said claim has already become extinctive prescription.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.