1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff at the Seoul Central District Court on January 25, 2016, based on the payment order issued on January 25, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a law firm established for the purpose of carrying out the duties of attorney-at-law and filed a lawsuit against Boan comprehensive construction company, etc., and concluded a delegation contract with the Plaintiff on March 12, 2012 as stated in the attached Form, and performed the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s legal affairs. On March 22, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation in the said lawsuit, which was rendered on March 22, 2012.

4. 13. A final and conclusive suit was terminated.

B. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the retainer amount under the delegation contract as seen earlier with the Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea1634, and the payment order ordering the payment of the retainer amount and the damages for delay was issued as of January 25, 201, and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including Ga number)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the above-mentioned claim for advance payment is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 163 subparag. 5 of the Civil Act, and the defendant could exercise the above claim for advance payment from April 13, 2012, which the plaintiff claimed as the initial date of the above contract for delegation of a lawsuit, at the latest.

As seen earlier, the Defendant applied for the above payment order only on January 13, 2016 after three years passed from the Defendant. As such, the statute of limitations for the above payment claim has expired.

I would like to say.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s interruption of the prescription period of 1 shall be deemed to have continuously approved the obligation to pay the retainers through B, which introduced the Defendant to the Plaintiff even before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the Plaintiff’s failure to raise any objection to the original payment order shall be deemed to have been approved.