1. The defendant's judgment on the plaintiff is based on the Seoul District Court Decision 2002Kadan285172.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for a promissory note judgment against the Seoul District Court 2002Kadan285172.

On December 26, 2002, the above court rendered a ruling that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 23,59,781 won and 14,658,00 won among them, 6% per annum from October 7, 2002 to November 15, 2002, and 25% per annum from November 16, 2002 to the date of full payment." The above ruling was finalized on February 4, 2003.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”. B. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive by the instant judgment, is hereinafter “instant claim”).

On January 30, 2013, based on the instant judgment, the Defendant was issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant collection order”) by Seoul Central District Court 2013TT723.

On February 4, 2013, the collection order was served on the garnishee, such as the Scar Savings Bank, and became final and conclusive.

C. On April 11, 2013, based on the instant judgment, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order based on the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013TTT 5819.

The above order of seizure and collection was served on the garnishee on April 16, 2013 and confirmed, and was served on the plaintiff on May 23, 2013.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1, 3, and Gap evidence 3-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The statute of limitations suspended due to a judicial claim as to the cause of claim runs anew from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the statute of limitations run from February 4, 2003 when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

According to Article 176 of the Civil Act, if the seizure, etc. does not take place against the person who received the benefit of prescription, it shall not have the effect of interrupting prescription until such person has been notified thereof. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff received the seizure and collection order of this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been served