2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the land listed in [Attachment List Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Plaintiff B is the owner of the land listed in [Attachment List Nos. 4 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. On May 10, 2006, the Defendant completed the attachment registration for the instant land (hereinafter “instant attachment registration”) on the following day by reason of attachment (C).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was extinguished upon the completion of five-year extinctive prescription for the seized claims regarding the instant land.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the registration of seizure of this case should be cancelled to the plaintiffs.

B. In a case where a short-term prescription has been interrupted, the period of prescription that has passed until the interruption shall not be included therein, but shall newly run from the time when the cause of interruption ceases to exist (Article 28(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 178(1) of the Civil Act), and the effect of interruption of prescription based on the “Attachment” among the causes of interruption of prescription can be deemed to have expired when the seizure

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840 Decided April 28, 2017). After the registration of the seizure of this case was executed, the seizure was cancelled.

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the enforcement procedure has been completed, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.