1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “Until the pronouncement of the judgment in this case is made,” No. 3, 10, 3 of the judgment in the first instance court, “Until the judgment in this case is rendered by the plaintiff against H, Defendant B’s father,” and “Until the judgment in the lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act (No. 2016Gadan8819) brought by the plaintiff against Defendant B’s father, the incidental branch court in the Busan District Court).” In addition, with respect to the assertion added or emphasized by this court, it is identical to the entry in the part of the reasons for the judgment in the first instance court, and thus, it is cited pursuant to

2. Additional determination

A. If the plaintiff alleged that the decision to commence compulsory sale of real estate on the instant real estate owned by the defendant B is likely to be withdrawn or dismissed, and even if the auction is conducted, there is no possibility that the plaintiff will be distributed to the plaintiff, the extinctive prescription of the claim against the defendant B cannot be deemed interrupted according to the above decision to commence

B. Determination 1) Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that “The interruption of extinctive prescription shall not be effective when a seizure is cancelled upon a request of the right holder or because of a failure to comply with the provisions of the Act.” This is because such a cause is deemed an act of objectively expressing that an execution creditor did not intend to exercise his/her right, or a legitimate exercise of right from the beginning is not deemed to have existed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da88019, Jan. 13, 2011). As such, when an auction procedure was cancelled pursuant to Article 102(2) of the Civil Execution Act, which provides for the cancellation of auction where there is no possibility of remaining after the date, it cannot be deemed that the interruption of extinctive prescription under Article 175 of the Civil Act is not effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da228778, Feb. 26, 2015).