1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The defendant filed a claim against the plaintiffs for the payment order on October 23, 1996 for the reasons that the defendant lent KRW 2,480,000 to the plaintiffs, and on March 8, 2005, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Da3589 decided March 8, 2005, the plaintiff jointly and severally paid KRW 2,480,000 to the defendant and its delay damages.

The payment order of this case was served on the plaintiffs on March 15, 2005, and was finalized on March 30, 2005. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds of recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied, since the bonds established by the payment order of this case (hereinafter "bonds of this case") were extinguished due to the expiration of ten years after March 30, 2005, which was the date on which the above payment order became final and conclusive.

In this regard, the defendant, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, received a decision to seize and collect the claim against the plaintiffs, and thus suspended the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case.

B. The fact that the payment order in this case was finalized on March 30, 2005 is clear that the ten-year extinctive prescription has passed thereafter.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant, on May 20, 201, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the instant claim, requested the Plaintiffs to issue a seizure and collection order based on the instant payment order, and received a seizure and collection order on May 24, 201 (Seoul District Court 201TTTT 201TT 19045), and on August 25, 201, issued a seizure and collection order on May 24, 201. Since it is recognized that the instant order received from the Plaintiffs, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was interrupted

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit, and eventually, this case.