1. The defendant's decision on the purchase price case of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2000 Ghana84256 against the plaintiff is based.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the purchase price as Seoul Central District Court 200 Ghana84256, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on June 14, 200 by the above court.

The above judgment was finalized on July 25, 2000.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

According to the judgment of this case, the defendant seized corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff around October 200, and around that time, corporeal movables were sold by a public auction.

(The plaintiff makes a confession). C.

Based on the instant judgment, the Defendant seized corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff on December 17, 2015.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2015No. 5015). [Reasons for Recognition] A, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff against the plaintiff will continue the ten-year extinctive prescription period from July 25, 2000 when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and the progress was suspended through the defendant's execution of the seizure of corporeal movables, and again, the ten-year extinctive prescription period from the date of termination of the compulsory auction of corporeal movables (it seems that it is unclear on October 200, but it seems that it is about October 200).

Since the defendant seized corporeal movables again on December 17, 2015 after ten years have elapsed since the date of termination of the procedure for a compulsory auction for corporeal movables around October 2000, it is deemed that the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment of this case has expired, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant alleged to the effect that the extinctive prescription was interrupted by the execution of a seizure of corporeal movables around August 17, 2007, before the lapse of 10 years from the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit

C. Therefore, since the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant judgment is deemed to have been extinguished due to the completion of prescription, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion