1. Compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant based on the Busan District Court Decision 2007Gaso60110 decided December 10, 2007.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C with Busan District Court No. 2007Gapo6010 to seek the return of the loan, and received a judgment on December 10, 2007, stating that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 14,802,370 won and twenty percent per annum from February 17, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2008.

B. On May 18, 2018, the Defendant commenced compulsory execution, such as requesting for the seizure and collection order of the claim, under this Court Decision 2018TT 54365, based on the instant judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the judgment of this case was finalized on January 22, 2008, and it is apparent that the Defendant’s request for seizure and collection order based on the judgment of this case was made on May 18, 2018, after the lapse of ten years from the request, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment of this case was completed and extinguished.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s summary of the claim is the same year on July 10, 2008 where the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment of this case is in progress on July 10, 2008.

8. 18. The plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription of the business was suspended because it was clearly stated by the plaintiff.

B. The effect of the interruption of extinctive prescription by the decision on the specification of property is recognized inasmuch as the interruption of extinctive prescription by the decision on the specification of property is recognized as only "peremptory", which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription, for the purpose of the realization of the claim based on the final judgment, if the creditor filed an application for specification of the property against the debtor for the realization of the claim based on the final judgment, and the decision was served on the debtor. Thus, the interruption of extinctive prescription by the decision on