beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
In around 204, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C seeking the payment of the amount of the bill of exchange, and this court rendered service by public notice of the written complaint against the Plaintiff and C on August 24, 2004 (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”) that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 17 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 8, 2004 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive on September 21, 2004.
[Ground of recognition] The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim for judgment on the grounds of claim as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole purport of the pleadings shall commence anew from the time the judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the defendant's claim based on the judgment of this case shall resume from September 21, 2004, for which the judgment
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be allowed, barring any special circumstance, since the statute of limitations has expired on September 21, 2014, which was ten years after September 21, 2004.
As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the defendant raised a defense that the extinctive prescription had been interrupted because he received a ruling on the seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the seizure collection order of this case") from the Ulsan District Court 2014TTTT2924 prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. According to the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, it can be acknowledged that the defendant received the seizure collection order of this case, stating that the defendant seizes the deposit claim against the plaintiff's national bank against the plaintiff's national bank on March 10, 2014. Thus, the above extinctive prescription was interrupted by the seizure collection order of this case, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription period has not expired again, barring any special circumstances, the defendant's defense is justified, and therefore, the plaintiff
The plaintiff's assertion is justified.