1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on May 4, 1999 against the Incheon District Court 9Da6056, which sought payment of goods, and on July 7, 1999, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay C 94,700,000 won and 25% interest per annum from June 13, 1999 to the day of complete payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 18, 199.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment,” and the claim for the price of goods and the damages for delay pursuant to the said judgment are referred to as “the claim for the instant amount of judgment”).

C On March 23, 2017, on the same day, transferred the instant judgment claim to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the claim by content-certified mail, and the said notification reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff of the parties asserts that since the extinctive prescription of the judgment bond of this case that the defendant acquired has expired, compulsory execution based on this shall be dismissed.

The Defendant, on November 9, 2007, received a seizure and collection order with C as Seoul Western District Court 2007TTTT7912, and completed its execution on December 31, 2007, and thereafter, C received a seizure and collection order with C’s execution claim with its execution claim. Since the Defendant, who acquired the judgment amount claim from C, received a seizure and collection order with its execution claim under the Jeonju District Court 2017TTT7183 as of September 26, 2017, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order with its execution claim with its execution claim as of September 26, 2017, the instant claim of this case should be dismissed.

B. We examine the judgment, the extinctive prescription period of the judgment bond of this case is ten years, and the fact that the period from August 18, 1999 to ten years has elapsed since the judgment of this case became final and conclusive is clear in the calculation.

However, the statute of limitations is interrupted by seizure (Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act).