1. The defendant's Cheongju District Court 2004Gaso6920 against the plaintiff is the executive force of the defendant's claim for the cost of using credit cards.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition reveal that Samsung Card Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on October 13, 2004 against the Cheongju District Court for the claim for the use of credit card, and on November 29, 2004, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the above company the amount of KRW 7,762,460 and KRW 7,673,889, which shall be 29.9% per annum from April 20, 2004 to the full payment date" (hereinafter referred to as "judgment subject to the claim"), and the judgment subject to the claim objection becomes final and conclusive on December 18, 2004, and the defendant may file a decision to accept the claim based on the judgment subject to the claim from the above company and to accept the claim based on the order of collection and seizure and collection.

B. Since it is apparent that the ten-year period has elapsed from December 18, 2004, which was the final date of the judgment on the subject of the claim objection, to July 2, 2015, which was the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the claim based on the judgment on the subject of the claim objection became extinct by the completion of prescription, barring any special circumstance.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant applied for the grant of the succeeded execution clause on October 7, 2009 after acquiring the claim based on the judgment on the objection subject to a claim around 2009 and the certified copy of the succeeded execution clause was served on the plaintiff on October 30, 2009. The defendant asserts that the delivery of the certified copy of the succeeded execution clause as above constitutes a claim under Article 168 (1) of the Civil Act and thus, extinctive prescription is interrupted.

However, the delivery of a certified copy of the succeeded execution clause is merely a supplementary or incidental procedure and cannot be deemed a cause for interruption of the extinctive prescription. In addition, even if the delivery of a certified copy of the succeeded execution clause is made by the peremptory act under Article 174 of the Civil Act, the Defendant did not take measures such as filing a lawsuit within six months, and the claim based on the judgment on the objection filed by the claim was extinguished