1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. In the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court, this Court shall take February 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the Busan District Court Decision 2002 Ghana572076, filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of credit card use price against the Plaintiff.

As a result of the lawsuit brought against the plaintiff by public notice, on December 11, 2002, the judgment for full acceptance of the claim (the judgment of 1,746,286 won and 725,300 won among them must be paid with 25% interest per annum from December 6, 2002 to the date of full payment) was rendered, and it became final and conclusive on January 15, 2003.

B. On June 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received the instant claim based on the said final judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”); (b) was granted an execution clause succeeded to the original copy of the said final judgment; and (c) was served on July 3, 2015 on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 3 evidence

2. 10 years have passed since the plaintiff's assertion became final and conclusive, and the claim in this case expired due to the completion of prescription.

3. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 4 through 7 of the judgment and the whole pleadings, following the conclusion of the judgment above, following the conclusion of the judgment, the claim in this case was a personal asset management loan of a stock company, which was followed by M& asset management loan of a stock company, and thereafter, was transferred to the defendant in succession, and the defendant was transferred to the defendant, and the judgment was issued by requesting the court to issue a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff based on the original executory exemplification of the above final judgment (Seoul District Court Order 2011TTTTT 2006, Mar. 21, 201), and the third debtor and debtor were served the original copy of the decision at that time.

Since the claim of this case is based on the final judgment, the period of extinctive prescription is ten years, and as seen above, the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted, and the seizure and collection order was served on the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, by public notice. However, the interruption of prescription is not denied on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription was served on the Plaintiff, who is the debtor.