Gwangju District Court 2010 Gaz. 60515, 2020 Gaz. 17756 against the defendant's plaintiff shall execute each of the construction cost cases.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for construction cost as the Gwangju District Court 96Ga Office 118142, and on December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 8,300,000 to the Defendant and the delayed damages therefrom” was finalized on January 14, 1997 (hereinafter “the judgment of 1996”). (b) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for construction cost claim by the Gwangju District Court 2010Ga Office 60515 on April 16, 2010, and the decision of recommending the performance was finalized on June 15, 2010 (hereinafter “the first execution recommendation”).

On June 11, 2020, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for construction cost claim against the Plaintiff on July 31, 2020 for the extension of the prescription period of the first execution recommendation decision (hereinafter “the second execution recommendation”) and the decision to recommend performance became final and conclusive on July 31, 2020 (hereinafter “the second execution recommendation”).

The defendant was decided to commence a compulsory auction of real estate as the main source of enforcement decision of the second implementation recommendation and as the title of enforcement decision of the second implementation recommendation, with respect to the remaining and two parcels of land owned by the plaintiff, Gwangju District Court Mapo-si D.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 16, 2010, after ten years have passed since the judgment of 1996 became final and conclusive on January 14, 1997, the Defendant filed a lawsuit again and received the first recommendation for performance, and received the second recommendation for the extension of the prescription period. The Defendant’s recommendation for performance did not have res judicata effect. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for construction payment against the Plaintiff was terminated by prescription after ten years have passed since the judgment of 1996 became final and conclusive, and compulsory execution based on the first and second recommendations for performance should be rejected.

B. Defendant 1) If the decision to recommend the performance becomes final and conclusive, the statute of limitations defense cannot be raised against the underlying obligation.

2) The defendant is entitled to execute the judgment of 1996.