1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2005Kadan20832 Decided August 30, 2005.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the plaintiff (Seoul Northern District Court 2005Kadan20832) and rendered a judgment on August 30, 2005 that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 28 million won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from August 18, 2005 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the judgment of this case can be recognized as the fact that the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on September 22, 2005.

According to the above facts of recognition, the claim of this case was ten years after September 22, 2005, which is the date of confirmation, and its extinctive prescription was completed on September 21, 2015. Thus, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the instant judgment claim was suspended since the Defendant seized the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff on March 23, 2009 (Seoul Northern District Court 2009No. 1249) based on the instant judgment.

Article 168 Subparag. 2 of the Civil Act provides that “Attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition” shall be the cause interrupting extinctive prescription. Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that “Attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition shall have no effect of interrupting prescription in a case where it is revoked upon the request of the right holder or because it does not comply with

Here, "when a right holder's request is revoked" refers to cases where a right holder withdraws an application for seizure, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition, and "the interruption of prescription has no effect" refers to cases where the interruption of extinctive prescription becomes retroactively null and void.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da63591 Decided November 13, 2014). In the instant case, the following facts are not disputed between the parties, but the fact that the Defendant executed a seizure of the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables on March 23, 2009.