1. The Plaintiff’s case concerning the purchase price of goods (2008Gahap741, Sept. 18, 2008) against the Defendant B of the Gwangju District Court.

1. The indication of the claim or the recognition of the claim is as shown in the attached Form “the cause of the claim.”

2. Defendant B based on recognition: The fact that there is no dispute over a judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act): The entries in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. Determination as to Defendant C

A. According to the above facts, the judgment of the Gwangju District Court 2008Gahap741 case (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") against the defendant C was finalized on October 5, 2008 with the purport that "the defendant C shall pay to the plaintiff 184,95,000 won jointly and severally with the defendant Eul and at the rate of 20% per annum from September 3, 2008 to the date of full payment." Since the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 10, 2020 after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the above judgment, the extinctive prescription period of the above judgment claim against the defendant C was expired, and the defendant C's defense pointing this out has merit.

(1) The Defendant C’s assertion of retirement on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations, but as long as the Defendant is disputing the completion of the statute of limitations on the claim of this case, the interest in the confirmation of the instant lawsuit is recognized, and thus, the allegation of retirement is not accepted).

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case was suspended by prescription.

In a case where a real estate owned by one of the joint and several obligors is seized, the period of extinctive prescription against the above obligor shall not be interrupted, but since the interruption of prescription by seizure does not affect other joint and several obligors, it cannot be asserted against the other joint and several obligors who have the effect of interrupting prescription by a decision to commence the auction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22840, Aug. 21, 2001). The Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction against the Defendant B’s real estate on October 23, 2009, and the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated around that time, and the above real estate was seized. However, the above compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Defendant B was conducted by