1. The Defendant’s order of payment for the construction cost in Busan District Court Branch No. 2015 tea 1629 against the Plaintiff is authentic.

1. The Defendant had ordered the Plaintiff to construct the interior of a building owned by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 159,00,000 among the construction cost, and applied for the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the payment order became final and conclusive.

(Supplementary District Court 2015j1629). 2. Plaintiff’s assertion

A. On July 21, 2008, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to remodel the Plaintiff’s church building, and paid the full amount of KRW 1.2 billion by April 13, 2012.

B. Even if the unpaid construction cost remains, the above church building was completed on December 30, 2008, and the Plaintiff paid the construction cost to the Defendant on April 13, 2012. Since the instant payment order had to be filed on May 26, 2015, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.

C. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. First, among the amount claimed in the instant payment order, the fact that KRW 50 million is not the construction cost is the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the remainder of the claim for construction cost, the above church building was approved as of August 26, 2009, and the date when the Plaintiff paid the construction cost to the Defendant can be recognized as of April 13, 2012. The instant payment order was filed on April 13, 2012 for three years (Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act) which is the extinctive prescription period from April 13, 2012, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for construction cost against the Plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.

C. Therefore, a compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order for the construction cost payment order issued by Busan District Court Branch 2015 tea 1629 against the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.