2. This.

A. On April 22, 2004, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with the Incheon District Court 2003Kadan84148, and rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 25,418,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 11, 2004 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 9, 2004.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) b. the Defendant’s claim based on the above judgment.

On July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff issued a decision to grant immunity on October 28, 2009 by the Incheon District Court No. 2008Hadan7301 and 2008Ha7309, which decided bankrupt and application for immunity. The above decision became final and conclusive on November 17, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether extinctive prescription expires;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim of this case has expired by prescription, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the instant claim has expired by prescription or not.

The facts that the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on June 9, 2004 are as seen earlier.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the instant claim with the Incheon District Court 2014TTTT15695, May 20, 2014, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, as a whole, on May 20, 2014. Accordingly, on June 12, 2014, the defendant issued a judgment of seizure and collection order of the Plaintiff’s non-credit card company, etc., and the original copy of the seizure and collection order of the said claim was served on the third debtor on June 17, 2014.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the claim against the plaintiff of this case was interrupted when the defendant requested the above seizure and collection order, and its effect continues until the compulsory execution is completed.

The plaintiff is an order of seizure.