1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, on the grounds that the part of the judgment of the first instance is to be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for cases where the part of the judgment of the first instance is partially dismissed as set forth in paragraph (2). As such, the part to be used after dismissal is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: (a) where the creditor files an application for seizure of one of the property jointly and severally liable by the creditor (as to the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for the interruption of the extinctive prescription period against Defendant B and D), the interruption of prescription by seizure does not extend to the other jointly and severally liable (Articles 175 and 423 of the

Even if the interruption of prescription of an attachment under Article 168 of the Civil Code does not extend to Defendant B and D.

However, the obligee’s application for attachment has the effect as a peremptory notice against the executory obligor, and the demand for performance against one of the obligors is effective against the other obligors (Article 416 of the Civil Act). Thus, if the obligee filed a judicial claim against the other obligors within six months after seizure pursuant to Article 174 of the Civil Act, the obligee has the effect of interrupting prescription by peremptory notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22840 Decided August 21, 2001). However, the fact that the Plaintiff received the instant seizure and collection order against the deposit claims of Defendant C, which are other joint and several obligors on January 27, 2015, is as seen earlier, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a judicial claim against Defendant B and D within six months thereafter, the interruption of prescription by peremptory notice cannot be recognized.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals by the plaintiff to the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.