beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the judgment of this case was finalized on December 25, 2003 that "the plaintiff would pay the defendant 35,272,48 won and damages for delay thereof," and the fact that 10 years have elapsed from this date as of the date of the closing of argument at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the same time is apparent, barring any other special circumstances, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff at the court of this case against the plaintiff
2. The defendant's defense and the plaintiff's assertion
A. The defendant's defense is proved to have been interrupted by the seizure.
According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the defendant applied for a seizure and collection order as an executory exemplification of the judgment of this case on December 24, 2010 by designating the plaintiff as the debtor, and financial institutions such as D Co., Ltd. as the third debtor, and applied for a seizure and collection order as an executory exemplification of the judgment of this case. On December 28, 2010, Ulsan District Court 2010TTT1726 (hereinafter referred to as "the first seizure and collection order") was issued on December 31, 2010, and the written decision was delivered to the third debtor by December 31, 2010, and the defendant was also delivered to the third debtor on January 27, 201, and the defendant applied for a seizure and collection order as an executory exemplification of the judgment of this case, and all of the claims recognized as an executory exemplification of the judgment of this case were issued to the third debtor on January 31, 2011.
Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified.
B. As to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff was not served with a collection order for the first, second and second seizure, Article 176 of the Civil Code.