(However) However, in light of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the defendant A is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and delay damages as stated in the Disposition No. 1, unless there are special circumstances, as stated in the Disposition No. 1.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”). The Defendant A’s defense of extinctive prescription had been asserted that the instant claim had expired since the lapse of 10 years from June 20, 2004 when the payment order for the instant claim became final and conclusive.

On this issue, the plaintiff re-appeals that the extinctive prescription has not been completed since the prescription was interrupted by auction.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the lawsuit of this case was instituted after the lapse of 10 years from the time when the payment order for the claim of this case was finalized.

However, the interruption of the extinctive prescription by seizure shall take effect retroactively from the time of application, and continue until the compulsory execution procedure is terminated, and the exercise of the right to the portion for which the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive shall be terminated, and the period of extinctive prescription interrupted for that portion shall proceed again from the time of the termination thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da8980, Mar. 26, 2009). According to the overall purport of entry and pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction on December 31, 2012 with regard to the instant claim, etc., on the real estate owned by the Defendant A (YY C, etc.) with the applicant’s claim, and on January 1, 2013, the decision to commence the auction on