1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the payment of goods with the Cheongju District Court Decision 2008Kadan27196, and the above court rendered on November 27, 2008 the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 40,859,500 won with 5% per annum from October 26, 2006 to November 7, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on December 18, 2008.

B. On May 26, 2009, upon the Plaintiff’s application with executive title, a decision to commence compulsory auction was rendered to the Cheongju District Court D with respect to the land size of 272 square meters and above-ground housing owned by the Defendant, and the said decision was concluded on June 24, 2010.

C. On December 14, 2018, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order under the Cheongju District Court 2018 Cheongju District Court 2018 Cheongju District Court 2018 Kaju 3149, which is the debtor, the third debtor E, etc., with the title of execution, and the said order was served on the third debtor at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, ex officio.

According to the facts based on the facts, after the judgment on December 18, 2008 became final and conclusive, the decision to commence compulsory auction was rendered on May 26, 2009 with enforcement title as to the claim of this case. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription on the claim of this case was suspended, and the said procedure was resumed from June 24, 2010 when the compulsory auction procedure was terminated.

Since then on December 14, 2018, the statute of limitations of the instant claim was again interrupted at that time, since the seizure and collection order was issued.

Furthermore, the execution procedure according to the above seizure and collection order was completed later.

Unless there is evidence supporting the circumstances such as the cancellation of the above attachment, etc., the interruption of prescription due to the seizure and collection order continues to be effective.