1. The Defendant’s executory order against the Plaintiff in this Court 2012 tea 11385 is authentic.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff occurred at the face value of 12,400,000 won and the check number as of October 18, 2000 on the date of payment (hereinafter “the check of this case”). The Defendant, as the final holder of the check of this case, presented a payment proposal to the Livestock Industry Cooperative on October 18, 200, but refused payment due to non-transaction.

B. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the instant check amount with the Daejeon District Court 2002 tea 11947. Accordingly, the said court issued a payment order on November 4, 2002 (hereinafter “previous payment order”) and confirmed on November 29, 2002.

C. After that, for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the previous payment order, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the Daejeon District Court 2012 tea1385 check payment order, and the said court issued a payment order on October 23, 2012 and became final and conclusive on November 23, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion should have claimed the payment of the check within six months after the expiration of October 18, 200, which was the date when the payment was presented. However, since the defendant applied for the previous payment order after the above period, the extinctive prescription under the Check Act was completed, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected.

B. The fact that the Defendant applied for the previous payment order after the lapse of six months from the payment date of the check in this case is no dispute between the parties, and the right to recourse against the drawer of the check is extinguished if it is not exercised within six months from the expiration of the payment period. As such, the Plaintiff’s obligation of the check in this case was extinguished by prescription.

I would like to say.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order, which is premised on the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the instant check amount, should be denied.