The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the prescription has been interrupted, the prescription period which has lapsed until the interruption shall not be included therein, but shall newly run from the time when the cause of interruption ceases to exist (Article 28(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 178(1) of the Civil Act), and the interruption of prescription by “a seizure” among the causes of interruption may be deemed to have expired when the seizure is cancelled or the execution procedure is terminated

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317 Decided November 26, 2015 (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317, Nov. 26, 2015). Meanwhile, even if a seizure of a policyholder’s insurance claim is conducted, the obligor or the third obligor may terminate the insurance contract itself, which is the basic contractual relationship, and when the insurance contract is terminated, the claim arising from the contract is extinguished upon the termination of the insurance contract, and thus a seizure order subject to such termination is invalidated (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da105161, Jul. 12, 2013). In cases where the prescription of the obligee’s claim against the obligor due to the seizure of a claim based on a disposition on default has been interrupted due to the completion of the procedure for disposition on default by the obligee’s claim upon the termination of the basic contractual relationship or the completion of the extinctive prescription, the cause for interruption of prescription can no longer proceed.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged on June 25, 2004, that the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract of “Class 2 without dividend cancer pure guarantee” with Linna Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) and that the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s insurance claim and the claim for the refund of insurance premium under the instant insurance contract on January 23, 2006 due to the Plaintiff’s delinquency in tax liability (hereinafter “instant attachment”). Then, the attachment is released.