beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public's office of the law firm is the citizen general law office of May 10, 2004.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 10, 2004, Plaintiff A issued to the Defendant a promissory note with face value of KRW 29,680,00,000, and due date of December 30, 2004 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). On the same day, Plaintiff A prepared and executed the Notarial Deed (No. 696, 2004) to the Defendant (No. 2004). Plaintiff B guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation under the Promissory Notes.
B. Based on the notarial deed of the Promissory Notes, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order on the wage and retirement allowance claim against the Plaintiff Company A, Coone, Ltd., and issued a collection order on January 11, 2005 (U.S. District Court 2005TTT168).
C. From December 4, 2009 to February 26, 2010, Plaintiff A paid KRW 9,500,000 to the Defendant. D.
Meanwhile, on September 22, 2015, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim, the guarantor, based on the authentic deed of the Promissory Notes in this case, and issued a seizure and collection order (this Court No. 2015TT 6171).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) asserts that the extinctive prescription has expired after the lapse of three years from December 30, 2004, when the defendant's claim of the promissory note in this case was due. As seen earlier, the interruption of the extinctive prescription becomes effective as to the claim of the instant promissory note in this case since there was a seizure and collection order around January 11, 2005, and around January 11, 2005, as to the claim of the instant promissory note in this case. This also affects the interruption of the extinctive prescription against the plaintiff B, the guarantor, unless there is any other evidence to deem that the compulsory execution based on the above seizure and collection order has been completed. In addition, the interruption of the extinctive prescription cannot be deemed retroactively lost, unless there is any other evidence to support that the compulsory execution based on the above seizure and collection order has been completed.2) The above plaintiffs are those subject to the seizure and collection order.