1. The Defendant’s loan extended to the Plaintiff at the Daegu District Court on November 13, 2008, 2008Da328 decided November 13, 2008.

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff in this court on November 3, 2018, and the payment order of "4,950,000 won, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 30, 2018 to the date of full payment" was issued with the payment order (2008 tea328), and the above payment order is recognized as finalized on November 13, 208.

Since the extinctive prescription period of the above claim is ten years, barring any special circumstance, a claim based on the defendant's above payment order has expired by prescription on November 13, 2018.

The defendant asserts that even before the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff, the defendant paid money to the defendant even before the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff, and the defendant started compulsory execution because he did not repay his obligation within the agreed time limit with consideration of the plaintiff who was in Byung and did not perform compulsory execution. Thus, the above claim was interrupted, and even if the time limit is not interrupted, the plaintiff's assertion that the extinctive prescription of the claim is abuse of rights.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff approved the obligation before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, it is difficult to regard the plaintiff's claim for expiration of extinctive prescription as abuse of rights

The defendant's defense is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the denial of compulsory execution due to the above payment order is justified.