1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff has expired since the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the agreed amount against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2003Da344094) and ten years have passed since the Defendant’s favorable judgment was rendered and the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive.

According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff with the Busan District Court 2003Gada344094 and the defendant's winning judgment was pronounced. The plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff and appealed with the Busan District Court 2004Na1858, but the plaintiff was deemed to have withdrawn from appeal on August 24, 2004 and the above judgment became final and conclusive as of February 1, 2004.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim based on the above final judgment against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) is apparent in fact that ten years have already elapsed since the time when the above judgment became final and conclusive, and barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was completed.

2. The Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was suspended since the Defendant, on January 11, 2007, executed a compulsory execution on the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables before the lapse of 10 years from the time the above judgment became final and conclusive.

In a case where a seizure procedure has not been commenced, it shall be deemed that the interruption of prescription has no effect. However, in a case where the execution procedure commenced but there is no movable property to be seized, if the execution procedure becomes impossible due to the absence of any movable property, the prescription is newly progress from the time when the execution procedure is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10044, May 13, 201). According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant commenced the seizure execution procedure for the Plaintiff’s corporeal movable property on January 11, 2007 based on the instant claim as Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch 2007No209, Jan. 17, 2007, the execution is impossible as of January 17, 2007.