1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 19, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment that "5 million won and 24% interest per annum from August 11, 2004 to the full payment date" in the Suwon District Court 2006Kadan24045 claim amounting to the guaranteed debt amount filed against the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive on June 30, 2006.

B. Based on the foregoing final judgment, on February 29, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction (U.S. District Court C) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant real estate) and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on February 22, 2018.

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; All purport of oral argument]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the guaranteed debt against the Plaintiff’s assertion was finalized on June 30, 2006, and the Defendant received a decision by filing an application for compulsory auction after the lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations thereafter, and accordingly, the enforcement force based on the above judgment should be excluded.

In addition, the provisional seizure against immovables alleged by the defendant is a loan unlike the above guaranteed debt, and thus, it has no effect of interrupting prescription.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the above guaranteed obligation had already been maintained by provisional seizure of real estate, and thus, extinctive prescription of the above guaranteed obligation claim was interrupted.

C. The preservation of preservative measures does not require strict conformity between the preserved claim in the judgment and the right which is the subject matter of the lawsuit on the merits, and as long as the identity of the basis of the claim is recognized, the preservation of preservative measures extends to the right to the lawsuit on the merits of the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da22788, Feb. 28, 1997; 2006Da24568, Mar. 27, 2008). In addition, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides for provisional seizure as a cause interrupting prescription because the obligee exercised his right by provisional seizure is deemed to have been a cause interrupting prescription. As such, while the execution preservation by provisional seizure continues to exist, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue to exist.