1. The Defendant’s case against the Plaintiff is the Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch, Gwangju City Court, 2019j.2090 amount receivable.

1. On April 24, 2019, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the cost of the above teaching material (hereinafter “the price of the instant material”) with the Sungwon District Court 2019Da2090, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Seoul, for the purport that “The Defendant sold the Plaintiff as a part of the teaching material for licensed real estate agents on December 10, 2007, the Plaintiff paid only an installment payment until February 5, 2008, and did not pay the installment thereafter.” The above court issued the payment order under the above application on May 23, 2019 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on June 8, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim falls under the price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants, and thus, it shall be deemed that the short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act has taken place. It shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the price of goods in this case was expired on February 6, 201, past three years from February 6, 2008, which is the day following the date on which the Plaintiff paid a part of the payment for the goods in this case.

However, the Defendant applied for a payment order claiming the payment of the instant goods on April 24, 2019, which was after the expiration of the above extinctive prescription, and received the instant payment order. Therefore, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.