1. The defendant's execution order against the plaintiff was based on the original of the payment order which had the capacity to execute the case of this court 2012 tea.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul District Court 98Gaso346081, and the above court rendered a judgment on July 9, 1998 that "the plaintiff shall pay 18,148,810 won to the defendant and 5% per annum from April 17, 1998 to June 2, 1998, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 1998.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

Even after the judgment of this case, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order claiming payment of the purchase price with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 tea47624, stating that the Plaintiff did not pay the above purchase price. On July 23, 2012, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 18,148,810 won and 20% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment,” and the above payment order became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) In the case of a final payment order, unlike the final and conclusive judgment with respect to a claim which became the cause of requesting the payment order, the reason of failure or invalidation, etc. which occurred before the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against a request for the payment order;

(See Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act. (b)

According to the above facts, since the defendant applied for the payment order of this case more than 10 years after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the defendant's claim for the purchase price of this case against the plaintiff was already extinguished due to the expiration of extinctive prescription prior to the application for the payment order of this case.

As to this, the defendant, on June 7, 2012, is the defendant's demand notice or objection.