1. The defendant's decision of performance recommendation in the Incheon District Court 2007 Ghana2519 dated September 7, 2007 against the plaintiff was based on the decision of performance recommendation.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the decision on performance recommendation as stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) becomes final and conclusive on November 18, 2007, and the defendant applied for the attachment and collection order of the claim against the title of execution for which the decision on performance recommendation of this case was made on January 16, 2019 and received an order for the attachment and collection of the claim on January 18, 2019. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant started the execution procedure after the lapse of 10 years from the time when the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, since the defendant started the execution procedure after the lapse of 10 years from the time when the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive.

I would like to say.

2. Whether extinctive prescription is interrupted

A. Upon the Defendant’s motion, on August 26, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court 2013Kao-5370 case was registered in the register of defaulters, and the statute of limitations was interrupted around that time.

B. The list of persons who fail to perform monetary obligations within a given period refers to the list that registers certain matters on the debtor who fails to perform monetary obligations within a given period of time and keeps the list in the court for perusal or reproduction. Thus, the re-decision on the list of persons in default shall not be deemed to constitute grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription (Attachment, Provisional Attachment, Provisional Disposition) under Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil

Meanwhile, in a case where a creditor files an application to specify a debtor's property under the Civil Execution Act for the realization of a claim based on a final judgment, and the decision was served on the debtor, the validity of the decision is recognized only as a "peremptory" which is the cause interrupting extinctive prescription. Thus, the interruption of extinctive prescription by the decision to specify the property shall be deemed to be null and void unless the procedure under Article 174 of the Civil Act is continued, such as re-

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da78606 Decided January 12, 2012