청구이의
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2002Gahap13103 Decided April 30, 2004.
On October 31, 2002, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and the non-party C for the claim for joint and several liability amount (2002Gahap13103) with the Seoul Southern District Court. On April 30, 2004, the court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff and the non-party C jointly and severally pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 10 million per annum from April 8, 2004 to the day of full payment" (the judgment stated in paragraph (1) of this Article; hereinafter referred to as "decision subject to the claim").
On May 5, 2004, the original judgment was served by public notice on the Plaintiff, and on May 20, 2004, the said judgment became final and conclusive.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the judgment of the court on which a claim for determination of the purport of the entire pleadings was filed, and ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act) have passed since the date of the final conclusion of the argument in this case, the claim of the judgment on the objection filed became extinct due to the completion of prescription.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment against the plaintiff should not be permitted.
The summary of the defendant's defense on January 18, 2006, when the defendant seized the plaintiff's claim for the refund of the deposit for lease against non-party D on January 18, 2006, the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment
Judgment
According to Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2006, the defendant is recognized to have received a decision to seize and order the collection of 147,791,780 won, out of the plaintiff's claim for the return of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the above ground building E in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Seoul Northern District Court 2005TTTT 7590. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 5, the defendant's withdrawal of the above claim for the seizure and collection order on February 18, 2008.
Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act provides that "a seizure, provisional seizure or provisional disposition" shall be the cause for interruption of extinctive prescription, and the seizure, provisional seizure or provisional disposition under Article 175 of the Civil Act shall be made upon the request of the holder of the right or in