구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court, the plaintiff and the defendants.
1. Whether the primary claim is legitimate among the lawsuits in this case
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the extinctive prescription period of the instant claim ought to be calculated from November 1, 2008 and the 222th of the same month, which became final and conclusive, and that the Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTT21261 served on the Defendant by public notice, and thus, the interruption of prescription cannot be deemed effective pursuant to Article 176 of the Civil Act, and that the instant lawsuit filed on May 21, 2018, which was filed on May 21, 2018, for ten years from the date the judgment in a prior suit became final and conclusive, is to prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and that the benefit
B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 7 (including additional numbers), the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the claim for the amount of compensation (hereinafter “instant claim”) with the Suwon District Court (hereinafter “the instant claim”), and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on October 7, 2008 (Seoul District Court Decision 2008DaDa116560, Oct. 7, 2008; hereinafter “the judgment prior suit of this case”). The judgment prior suit of this case became final and conclusive on Nov. 1, 2008 for the Defendant B, and on Nov. 22, 2008 for the Defendant C, and the Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Defendants as the debtor on Dec. 5, 2017.
7. The fact that the decision (Seoul Central District Court Order 2017TTT 21261 dated December 7, 2017) was received, and the fact that the above claim attachment and collection order reached the third debtor on December 12, 2017 can be acknowledged, and the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on May 21, 2018 is significant in this court.
C. According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was newly proceeded from November 1, 2008 and from December 22, 2008 of the same month, respectively, and on December 7, 2017, before ten years elapse, by filing an application for an order of seizure of the said claim, the extinctive prescription was interrupted, and the said order of seizure of the said claim reaches the third obligor. < Amended by Act No. 15035, Dec. 2, 2017>