The defendant's main district court of Chuncheon for the plaintiff 2001 Ghana 5827 is a substitute for the mediation of the old prize case.

Recognizing Facts

A. D received a decision in lieu of the conciliation on May 14, 2002 that “The Plaintiff shall pay D 26,235,255 won and 19,172,162 won per annum from May 19, 1999 to June 15, 2001, and 25% per annum from June 16, 2001 to June 16, 2001,” which stated that “The Plaintiff shall pay D 26,235,255 won and 19,172,162 won per annum from May 19, 199 to June 15, 2001.”

B. After having taken over the above claim for reimbursement from D, the Defendant applied for the issuance of a text of succession execution to this court and received a text of succession execution, and the copy of the succession execution statement reached the Plaintiff on August 24, 2020.

(c)

Based on this, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to each of the deposit claims the Plaintiff possessed against E Union and F Co., Ltd. as 1169, from the Daegu District Court Support 2020, and served the said order on the third debtor until September 14, 2020.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3, and the previous purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. The statute of limitations expired on June 8, 2012, which was 10 years from June 8, 2012, since the statute of limitations expired if it is not exercised for ten years as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the claim for the extinction of the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations expired on June 8, 2012, which was 10 years from June 8, 2012.

Unless there are special circumstances, compulsory execution based on the succession execution sentence against the defendant's decision in lieu of conciliation against the plaintiff shall not be allowed.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff had telephone conversations with the defendant

The defendant will pay money on August 13, 2020 to the defendant.

As such, this argument argues that this constitutes the approval of debt and the interruption of prescription.

However, since the above time of the defendant's assertion is after the expiration of the statute of limitations, this problem is the cause of interruption of prescription.