1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2004, the Plaintiff, as C’s children, lent the business registration name of “Dar” operated by C to C.

B. The Defendant supplied goods to the “Dart” but failed to receive the price of goods by April 17, 2006, which was due date, filed an application for a payment order with the Plaintiff on April 25, 2008.

C. On April 30, 2008, a payment order was issued on April 30, 2008, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 2,299,598 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from April 1, 2008 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

On May 15, 2008, the Defendant served the original copy of the instant payment order and did not submit a written objection within two weeks, and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on May 30, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted 1) The plaintiff asserts that ① C fully repaid the price of the goods under the instant payment order to the defendant, ② the defendant supplied the goods to C on June 30, 2004, which was the date on which the last supply of the goods was made on June 30, 2004, and the three-year short-term extinctive prescription (Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act) has already been completed on July 1, 2007, which was before the application for the instant payment order. 2) The defendant asserts that the payment of the goods was not made by C, and that the extinctive prescription was interrupted upon the application for the instant payment order, since the date of the payment of the goods was April

B. 1) The evidence presented by the Plaintiff on the assertion of repayment alone is insufficient to recognize that C fully repaid the payment of the goods under the instant payment order to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. 2) As to the completion of extinctive prescription.