1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant's KRW 1,752,452 among the plaintiff and KRW 50,000 among the plaintiff's KRW 1,752,452 shall be decided May 11, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the loan, and the Busan District Court rendered a judgment on January 14, 1998 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000 won and 5% interest per annum from July 31, 1987 to November 5, 1997, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment."

(B) The Plaintiff appealed on September 24, 1998, and the Busan District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul District Court 98Na2515), and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on January 27, 1999 (Supreme Court 98Da53301). The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 2, 1999 (Supreme Court 98Da5301).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). B.

The plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction for corporeal movables owned by the defendant (Ulsan District Court 2006No. 2462), and the above corporeal movables were awarded in the auction procedure for the provisional auction commenced on May 10, 206.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking payment of the remainder after deducting the amount distributed at auction from the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the judgment deposit claim according to the instant judgment.

B. The Defendant’s claim against the above judgment amount expired ten years after the date the judgment became final and conclusive.

3. Determination

A. Although the judgment of this case was finalized on March 2, 199, the fact that the plaintiff commenced a compulsory execution of the corporeal movables owned by the defendant before the expiration of the ten-year statute of limitations is as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the above judgment claim was interrupted due to the above compulsory execution, and the ten-year extinctive prescription period newly exists from May 10, 2006 when the above compulsory execution procedure was completed.