1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gaso164694 decided Oct. 10, 2007.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking wages against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, Inc. (former trade name: Personal Broadcasting, Inc.) and rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 14,120,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 16, 2007 to the date of full payment,” which became final and conclusive on November 3, 2017.

(Seoul Central District Court 2007 Ghana164694, hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case"). (b)

On June 18, 2018, the Defendant issued an execution clause against the instant judgment, and commenced a compulsory execution on July 6, 2018, such as attaching corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The instant judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s seizure is apparent in the record that it was conducted on July 6, 2018, which was ten years after the lapse of ten (10) years thereafter, and thus, the statute of limitations for a claim based on the said judgment has expired.

B. On March 7, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a request to specify the property on April 30, 2014, and rendered a decision to specify the property on April 30, 2014 (No. 2014dau1321), and the Defendant filed an application for the entry of the defaulters’ list on December 31, 2015, and rendered a decision to change the defaulters’ list on May 3, 2016 (No. 2015dau1893). Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the said extinctive prescription was suspended (No. 2015dau1893).

If, for the realization of a claim based on a final judgment, a creditor files an application to specify the debtor's property under the Civil Execution Act, and the decision was served on the debtor, the effect of the decision is recognized only as a "peremptory" which is the cause for interrupting the extinctive prescription. Thus, the interruption of extinctive prescription by the decision to specify the property shall be again brought within six months from the date of the decision, and the procedure as prescribed in Article 1