With respect to this part, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Upon applying for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff asserted the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the part demanding the payment of KRW 10,400,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from July 29, 2006 to the date of full payment, and the part demanding the payment of KRW 3,200,000 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from May 3, 2008 to October 10, 208, and the portion demanding the payment of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Upon submitting the application for correction of the claim and the cause of claim on May 5, 2020, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of KRW 10,400 and KRW 20 per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

(A) The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant appealed only the part of the judgment amount claim in 2008, as stated by the Plaintiff. The court of first instance appealed the part of the judgment amount claim in 2008.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of the judgment in 2008.

3. Determination as to the claim for judgment in 2008

A. Of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of prescription by seizure among the grounds for interruption of the relevant legal doctrine may be deemed to have expired when the seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017). In cases where the creditor who received the seizure and collection order collects the seized claim from the third debtor and reports the collection of the seized claim under Article 236(1) of the Civil Execution Act, other seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution until such time.