1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "2010Kadan152" in Part 2, Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "2010Kadan152"; and as to the plaintiff's new argument in the trial of the court of first instance to "2010Kadan152", it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2; therefore, it is acceptable in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) obtained a decision of provisional attachment on February 4, 2010 regarding B’s share out of KRW 30 million as a preserved right; and (b) completed the registration of provisional attachment pursuant to the decision of provisional attachment on February 4, 2010, by taking the Defendant’s claim against B as a preserved right; (c) however, the registration of provisional attachment was cancelled due to a compulsory auction on September 27, 2010; (d) thus, the interruption of prescription due to the above provisional attachment does not become effective; and (e) accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for the loan was extinguished by the lapse

B. Article 168 of the Civil Act prescribing provisional seizure as the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription is because the creditor can be deemed to have exercised his/her right by provisional seizure. While the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, the exercise of the right by the creditor of provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue. Therefore, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue until the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective.

On the other hand, provisional seizure is to preserve compulsory execution, and if real estate is sold at an auction procedure, it shall lose its effect upon fulfilling the purpose of preserving the execution of the real estate. In such a case, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall run anew from the termination of the cause of interruption when the registration of provisional seizure, which the creditor deems, continues to exercise its right by provisional seizure execution, barring any special

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18622, Nov. 14, 2013).