1. The Suwon District Court 2015 tea 494 against the Plaintiff is an executory exemplification of the Defendant’s payment order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a goods purchase contract with the Defendant and subsequently paid KRW 2,592,000 in total, from May 10, 2009 to April 10, 201 (the installment period of KRW 24 months and KRW 108,000 per month).

B. However, the Plaintiff was provided with a learning site by 17-month 1 share (the portion dispatched on December 28, 2010), and paid 1,103,944 out of 2,008,340 won for goods that occurred during the said period up to 2010, and did not pay the remainder of 904,396 won.

C. Accordingly, on February 10, 2015, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the price of the pertinent goods with the Suwon District Court 2015Gu494, and on February 16, 2015, the said court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 904,396 and the damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment.” The said payment order became final and conclusive on April 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) In the case of a final and conclusive payment order for the cause of claim, the claim that became the cause of claim of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order for the cause of failure, invalidation, etc. that occurred before the payment order was issued.

(See Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s claim for the price of goods (hereinafter “instant claim”) is a claim that applies for the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act as consideration for the goods sold by the merchants. Since the instant payment order was filed more than three years after January 201, the due date of the instant claim, the instant claim was completed and terminated before the application for the instant payment order.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant is normal during the subscription period.