1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 22, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against the Defendant with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2001 tea19457 and filed a lawsuit of this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription period under the above finalized payment order. The payment order was finalized on January 11, 2002, with the purport of "the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and the Plaintiff at a rate of 25% per annum from the next day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment." The above payment order was finalized on January 11, 2002.

B. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case more than 10 years after the above payment order became final and conclusive. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant based on the above payment order was extinguished by prescription.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff received a payment order against the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties.

However, since the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on October 15, 2015 after ten years from the date when the payment order became final and conclusive is apparent, the plaintiff's claim based on the above payment order against the defendant was extinguished by prescription.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the cause for interruption of prescription occurred since the Plaintiff filed an application for the specification of property with the Government District Court Decision 2010Kao4518 on August 4, 2010 as to the Defendant and received a decision to specify the property on October 27, 2010. However, unlike the attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition where specific enforcement or preservative measure on a specific subject matter is to be executed, the procedure for specification of property relations is merely an interim stage between the auxiliary procedure of compulsory execution or the preparation of compulsory execution to facilitate compulsory execution by detecting the subject matter of execution, and thus, it cannot be recognized even as equivalent to the attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition, which is the cause for interruption of the extinctive prescription under Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act.