1. The defendant's payment order for credit card use case against the plaintiff was issued by Busan District Court Decision 201Hu4623.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 7, 2010, the Defendant received a credit card use-price claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) from the Defendant on the transfer of the credit card use-price claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”). On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff received a notice of assignment of claim from the Defendant.

B. Around April 23, 2005, the claim of this case was first transferred to the defendant at KRW 933,339,00 in total and interest interest in arrears, and thereafter transferred to the defendant.

C. On February 17, 2011, the Defendant applied for the payment order from the Busan District Court to the Busan District Court on the ground of the instant claim that was acquired as above. On February 21, 2011, the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on February 21, 201, and the Plaintiff was served with the payment order on February 23, 201, and the said payment order on March 10, 201 became final and conclusive.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the claim of this case was made on February 17, 201, when five years have already passed since the date when the claim of this case was possible to claim the payment of the above claim (the plaintiff asserted that the claim of this case was in the past ten years) and it was made on April 23, 2005, which was the date when the first transfer was transferred or taken over (the date of the first transfer or taking over). Thus, the claim of this case had already expired before the application of the payment order of this case.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not claim extinctive prescription as to the instant claim after the Plaintiff received the notice of assignment of claims from the Defendant on October 26, 2010 (the same applies to the Defendant’s sending of the notice of assignment of claims to the highest date under Article 174 of the Civil Act). As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff would waive extinctive prescription benefits since the Plaintiff did not claim extinctive prescription as to the instant claim after receiving