1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s primary claim is all dismissed;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Facts constituting the basis for no dispute between the parties;

A. On January 7, 1994, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the deceased who is the principal debtor A and the joint guarantor, and received the judgment of this case containing "A and the deceased jointly and severally, and the defendant shall pay the defendant 2,361,361 won and damages for delay." The judgment of this case became final and conclusive on February 5, 1994.

B. Around September 20, 1997, when a deceased person died, the Plaintiff (appointed parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the remaining designated parties jointly inherited the deceased’s property.

C. After that, on November 4, 2003, in order to extend the extinctive period of the claim for reimbursement of principal and interest on the principal debtor indicated in the judgment of this case, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with A to seek reimbursement of “5,811,878 won of the principal and interest on the indemnity and 1,457,917 won, whichever is the rate of 17% per annum from October 31, 2003 to the date of full payment” (2003Gau137865 case) and then received a decision of performance recommendation from this court on November 7, 2003, and the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive around November 26, 2003.

Around 209, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on the property A with this court on the ground of the executive title that it had opened in front of the year 2009, and received dividends of KRW 1,296,122 on November 25, 201 from the auction procedure (D case) that was commenced accordingly.

2. Determination as to the main preliminary claim of this case where the plaintiff is a tax payer

A. As the grounds for each of the instant claims, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligations against the Defendant arising from the instant judgment was extinguished by the extinctive prescription on September 20, 2007, when ten years have passed since the date of the deceased person’s death, and thus, a compulsory execution based on the part against the Defendant’s deceased person among the instant judgment is no longer permissible, and that the Defendant’s judicial assistant officer granted the succeeding execution clause on September 19, 2018, based on the instant judgment is unlawful.