1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff was issued on April 23, 2008 by the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court.

1. The defendant was established for the purpose of building construction business on January 23, 2006 and changed from elim comprehensive construction corporation to satis comprehensive construction corporation, which was changed from elim comprehensive construction corporation to satis comprehensive construction corporation, and changed to the current trade name.

On April 22, 2008, the defendant filed an application with the plaintiff for the payment order "the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the payment order and the expenses for demand procedure" with the Changwon District Court 2008Ra536, Changwon District Court 2008, the payment order of this case was issued on April 23, 2008, and the plaintiff did not object to the delivery of the original copy of the above payment order on April 25, 2008, and the payment order of this case became final and conclusive on May 10, 208 because the plaintiff did not object to the delivery of the original copy of the payment order on April 25, 2008."

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's claim for the payment order of this case is that the defendant's claim for construction price against the plaintiff under the contract for the construction of a mushroom plant located B located at the time between the plaintiff and the defendant on October 16, 2004. Since the payment date of the above construction price was December 1, 2004, the above construction price claim at the time when the defendant applied for the payment order of this case has already been three-year extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the original payment order of this case should be rejected.

In regard to this, the defendant recognized the obligation for construction price since the plaintiff did not raise an objection even after being served with the original copy of the payment order in this case. Since the period of extinctive prescription of the defendant's claim for construction price against the plaintiff is extended to 10 years due to the confirmation of the payment order in this case, the plaintiff

B. (1) Determination is made: (a) The claim of the instant payment order is located B when the Defendant was granted a grace period against the Plaintiff.