1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant lent KRW 9,00,000 to Nonparty C, but as the above C was unable to repay it, the Defendant acquired the loan claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) and notified the Plaintiff on July 14, 2004.

B. On August 25, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the instant claim, and received a decision on performance recommendation for the acquisition money case (hereinafter “the instant performance recommendation decision”). The instant performance recommendation decision was served on the Plaintiff on August 29, 2005, and became final and conclusive on September 13, 2005.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the statute of limitations has expired from September 13, 2005, September 13, 2005, which was the date on which the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive, the compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

B. Since the Defendant received a decision on the seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s request by the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. On September 13, 2005, the fact that the decision on the recommendation of execution in this case was confirmed on September 13, 2005 is apparent that the ten-year extinctive prescription has passed thereafter.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff on April 29, 2015, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the instant claim, based on the instant performance recommendation decision, and received a decision to attach and collect the claim on May 1, 2015 (Seoul District Court 2015TTT 7346), and it is recognized that the said decision reached the Plaintiff around that time. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was interrupted.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's assertion is based on the completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case.