2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 23, 2004, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for revocation of fraudulent act, etc. (○○ District Court 2004Da153031), and revoked the sales contract on April 25, 2006 with the Plaintiff on December 10, 2002, which was concluded between the Plaintiff and Jung○○○ with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table, within the limit of KRW 65 million, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment that "the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 65 million won and its interest at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the final date of the judgment to the day of full payment." On August 31, 2006, the appellate court of the above case (2006Na8900), which was the appellate court (200), and the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay by 30% until November 30, 2006, which was calculated as above."

B. On December 23, 2004, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of real estate (○○ District Court 2004Kadan52363) on the real estate stated in attached Table 2 as the object of the property. On December 28, 2004, the Defendant received a decision of acceptance from the court on December 28, 2004, and the said decision of provisional disposition was revoked by the decision of revocation of provisional disposition (2017Kadan6620) by this court on February 12, 2018.

C. On September 29, 2005, the Defendant revoked the provisional seizure of real estate (○○ District Court 2005Kadan29644, hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) by using the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table as the object of the real estate as the object indicated in paragraph 1 of the attached Table against the Plaintiff.

D. Around March 30, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate (2018 Mata25666) with ○ District Court as the Plaintiff at ○○ Branch as the Plaintiff, and received a ruling to commence the auction from the said court on April 2, 2018.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the claim for the completion of extinctive prescription

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The provisional seizure revoked has no effect of interrupting prescription, and even though the decision of compulsory adjustment of this case became final and conclusive on September 23, 2006, the extinctive prescription has expired since the defendant was not able to exercise his right for ten years from the time it can be exercised.

(2) Determination

Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that "Where the provisional seizure is cancelled upon the request of the person having the right to the provisional seizure or because it does not comply with the provisions of law, the interruption of the extinctive prescription shall not be effective." This is because such reason constitutes an act objectively expressing that the person having the right to the provisional seizure has no intention to exercise the right, or an act which cannot be seen as a legitimate exercise of right from the beginning. Thus, in a case where the provisional seizure has been cancelled due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, the provisional seizure does not constitute a case where the interruption of the extinctive prescription as provided by the above Article 175 of the Civil Act has no effect. In addition, it is because the provisional seizure provides that the provisional seizure is a ground for extinctive prescription, and the preservation of execution by the provisional seizure has been continued while the preservation of execution by the provisional seizure remains effective, and in light of Article 168 of the Civil Act, even if a favorable judgment on the claim against the provisional seizure becomes final and conclusive, it shall not be deemed that the interruption of prescription by the provisional seizure becomes invalid (see, 2005.).

In light of these legal principles, the health department, the defendant received a decision of provisional seizure from this court on October 6, 2005 on the real estate listed in Paragraph 2 of the Attached List, and the fact that the decision of provisional seizure was revoked by this court on February 8, 2018 (No. 2017Kadan6621) is recognized as above. As such, the defendant's claim based on the decision of provisional seizure of this case against the plaintiff was suspended due to the provisional seizure of this case, and the period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the decision of compulsory adjustment of this case against the plaintiff of this case shall resume from February 8, 2018, when the provisional seizure was revoked, and it is evident in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on July 16, 2018, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for

B. Determination of abuse of rights and good faith assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant, upon confirmation of the decision of compulsory adjustment of this case, has left the plaintiff's property for not less than 10 years even if he could apply for compulsory execution at any time, and there was no fact that the plaintiff urged or demanded the plaintiff to repay his obligation. Thus, the plaintiff trusted that the plaintiff would no longer apply for compulsory execution or exercise his right, and suffered enormous damages by failing to exercise any property right as to the real estate attached as a result of

Nevertheless, when the provisional attachment or provisional disposition of this case was revoked, filing the lawsuit of this case and claiming the legal principle of the interruption of extinctive prescription by the provisional attachment goes against the principle of good faith and abuse of rights.

(2) Determination

On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s assertion of the legal principle on the interruption of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights or contravenes the good faith principle.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.