1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant against the Plaintiff by this Court on June 2, 2017, based on the payment order 2017 tea 2237.

The instant lawsuit was instituted three years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period from the date of loss of the benefit of time (see, e.g., May 30, 2012) or the date of payment of the last installment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do129, Nov. 20, 2012) alleged in the

Although the defendant asserts to the effect that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted, since the application for the payment order that was filed by the defendant on April 11, 2014 was dismissed, the interruption of the extinctive prescription has no effect, and even if the defendant made liaison or sent a peremptory notice several times, the interruption of the extinctive prescription has no effect as long as the defendant did not make a judicial claim within six months from that time.

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the extinctive prescription has been suspended.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.