1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 27, 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for indemnity, and this court rendered a service of a complaint, etc. against the Plaintiff by public notice, and sentenced on October 27, 2006, “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5,30,000 won with 5% per annum from April 23, 2002 to September 5, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim as to the cause of claim runs anew from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the Defendant’s claim based on the judgment of this case run from November 22, 2006 when the judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, a compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall not be allowed, barring any special circumstance, since the statute of limitations has expired on November 22, 2016, when ten years have elapsed since November 22, 2006.

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, received a ruling on the seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the seizure collection order of this case") against the plaintiff pursuant to the judgment of this case before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and accordingly, the defendant raised a defense that the extinctive prescription was suspended. According to the evidence Eul No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant received the seizure collection order of this case with the content that the defendant seizes the deposit claim against the plaintiff's new bank on February 26, 2008. Thus, the above extinctive prescription was suspended by the seizure collection order of this case, and it was apparent that the extinctive prescription period has not expired again, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's defense is justified, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

(c).