1. Seoul Central District Court Decision 95Ra2627 delivered on April 19, 195 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointed C

1. The judgment D on the cause of the claim is that the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the appointed party C (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff et al.") filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for a promissory note payment claim under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 95Da26627 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 19, 195, and notified the plaintiff et al. of the fact that the defendant acquired the above judgment claim and notified the transfer of the claim to the plaintiff et al., and the defendant filed a seizure and collection order of the plaintiff et al. on March 4, 2016 with the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2016TT Branch979 and filed a collection order for the deposit claim with the plaintiff et al. on March 4, 2016.

Since it is apparent that the lawsuit in this case was filed after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the final judgment of Seoul Central District Court 95Kadan26627, the statute of limitations for the above claim that the defendant acquired was completed.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, compulsory execution by the above judgment against the plaintiff et al. is not allowed.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff et al. renounced the prescription benefit after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the above judgment claim, in light of the fact that the plaintiff et al. knew of the existence of the above judgment claim and the acquisition of the defendant's claim, and the defendant was issued a seizure and collection order regarding the plaintiff's deposit claim.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant and the circumstance required by the defendant alone are insufficient to deem that the plaintiff et al. expressed his/her intent to waive the prescription benefit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant'

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case by the plaintiff et al. is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.