1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On January 26, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan under the Mayang Branch District Court Decision 2005Gau3974, and the above court on January 28, 2005, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 7 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from March 31, 2004 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”). The instant decision on performance recommendation was finalized on February 18, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim, which is interrupted due to a lack of dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and judgment on the ground of a claim for judgment as to the overall purport of pleadings, shall commence anew from the time the relevant judgment becomes final and conclusive. As such, the defendant's claim based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case shall run from February 18, 20

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, a compulsory execution based on the instant decision of performance recommendation shall not be allowed, barring any special circumstance, since the statute of limitations on February 18, 2015 expired on February 18, 2015, when ten years have elapsed since February 18, 2005.

As to the defendant's defense, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription had been interrupted since the defendant received a decision of seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the collection order of this case") against the plaintiff from the Jung-gu District Court High Court 2012TTTT 12750, pursuant to the decision of execution recommendation of this case.

According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant received the seizure collection order of this case with the content that the defendant seizes his deposit claims, etc. against the plaintiff's stock company C, etc. on October 15, 2012. As such, the above statute of limitations was interrupted by the seizure collection order of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's defense is justified, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the interruption of extinctive prescription is subject to seizure.