[1] Whether the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure continues while the preservation of provisional seizure remains effective (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a favorable judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive as to the preserved claim against provisional seizure, whether the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure ceases to exist (negative)

[1] Article 168 of the Civil Code provides for provisional seizure as a cause of interrupting prescription because the obligee can be deemed to have exercised the right by provisional seizure. Since the effect of preserving execution by provisional seizure continues to exist, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective.

[2] In light of Article 168 of the Civil Code, the provisional attachment and judicial claim are stipulated as separate causes for interruption of prescription, even if a favorable judgment on the merits of the preserved claim against the provisional attachment becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription by provisional attachment shall not be deemed to have expired due to its absorption.

[1] Article 168 subparag. 2, Article 176, and Article 178(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 168 subparag. 2, Article 176, and Article 178(1) of the Civil Act

Applicant

In general succession of the Respondent, other than the applicant

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na58968 delivered on January 12, 2000

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the applicant's grounds of appeal.

Article 168 of the Civil Code provides for provisional seizure as a cause of interruption of prescription because it can be deemed that an obligee exercised his/her right by provisional seizure. While the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, the exercise of right by an obligee of provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue. Therefore, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue until the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective.

In addition, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides that provisional attachment and judicial claim as separate causes of interruption of prescription, even if a favorable judgment on the merits of the preserved claim against provisional attachment becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription by provisional attachment cannot be said to extinguish by absorbing the effect of the provisional attachment.

In this case, according to the facts duly established by the court below, since the effect of the provisional seizure of this case as to the real estate continues to exist until now, the statute of limitations as to the preserved claim of this case is interrupted, and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles as to the completion period of the provisional seizure as to the provisional seizure. The grounds for appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)