1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order for the Busan District Court's 98 tea 10691.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff as Busan District Court's Dong Branch 98 tea10691, and it is recognized that the payment order was finalized on October 17, 1998 because the plaintiff did not object to the payment order even after the plaintiff was served with the payment order. Thus, since the debts under the above payment order were ten years after the expiration date of ten years from the date when the payment order became final and conclusive, the plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be denied is with merit.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the progress of the statute of limitations has been suspended by urging the plaintiff to perform the above obligation several times. According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant received a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff around 2010 based on the above payment order, but it is a seizure after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and there is no reason to deem that the plaintiff renounced the statute of limitations interest. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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