1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that “A claim entered in the cause of the instant claim (hereinafter “attached Form”) was issued a payment order with respect to the instant claim and filed a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.”

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the new card company filed an application for the payment order on November 27, 2008 with the High Military Court of Chuncheon District as the ground for the claim of this case under the High Military Court of 2008 tea104. The defendant did not raise an objection despite being served with the original copy of the payment order. It can be acknowledged that the payment order was finalized on November 27, 2008.

4. According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act, the payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the filing of a new suit concerning the same subject matter of lawsuit is not permitted as there is no benefit of protection of rights, barring special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, and the party’s successor is also entitled to enforce compulsory execution by being granted a succeeding execution clause. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the ten-year extinctive prescription period as of the date of closing argument of this case remains more than 2 years and 6 months

5. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect the rights.