2. The Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of extinctive prescription and its determination are defense to the effect that the period of extinctive prescription is five years as commercial claims, and that the extinctive prescription has expired.

According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the claim of this case was issued against each defendant, C Co., Ltd., 6,980,550 won (based on principal), D's 38,187,874 won (based on principal) and each interest or delay damages claim, and C Co., Ltd. received the claim seizure and collection order as of June 24, 2009 by Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2009Da98865 (based on principal) and by Jung-gu District Court District Court Decision 2010Du23728 (based on December 21, 2010), and D Co., Ltd. received the claim seizure and collection order as of July 7, 2010.

According to the above facts, at least 10 years of the completion of the execution of the seizure and collection order as of December 21, 2010, as of December 21, 2010, the C Co., Ltd.’s portion of the instant bonds shall continue to have the ten-year extinctive prescription period from the time when the execution of the seizure and collection order was completed. D’s portion shall have the ten-year extinctive prescription period from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive after July 7, 2010, which was sentenced to the judgment No. 2010Gadan20891, which was sentenced to the judgment No. 2010, the ten-year period thereafter, and it cannot be said that the extinctive prescription of the instant bonds was completed.

As above, the period of extinctive prescription is ten years pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act as a claim established by judgment, and the prior defendant's objection to the extinctive prescription is without merit on a different premise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.