1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 187,432,676 and KRW 76,657,732 among the Plaintiff, from June 20, 2018 to July 20, 2018.

1. Each fact in the separate sheet for determination of the cause of the claim may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 187,432,676 and KRW 76,657,732.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant's debt against the plaintiff was fully repaid through compulsory execution against the defendant's property.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the debt to the plaintiff was extinguished by the completion of extinctive prescription.

First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize the facts of the defendant's assertion only with the evidence submitted by the defendant as to the assertion that the debt has been fully repaid, and there is no other evidence

Next, as to the assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired, the fact that the payment order filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was finalized on June 8, 2008 is as seen earlier, and it is evident that the instant payment order was filed on June 25, 2018 after the lapse of ten years from the payment order.

However, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides for provisional seizure as a cause of interrupting prescription because the obligee may be deemed to have exercised the right by provisional seizure. Since the effect of the preservation for execution by provisional seizure continues to exist, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue until the preservation for execution by provisional seizure remains effective. In light of Article 168 of the Civil Act, the provisional seizure and the judicial claim are provided as a separate cause of interrupting prescription, even if a favorable judgment on the merits relating to the preserved claim by provisional seizure becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall not be deemed to have expired.