1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against the defendant against Busan District Court to seek the payment of the acquisition amount.

(B) On April 28, 2006, the above court rendered a ruling that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 184,460,204 won and 92,950,610 won with interest of 19% per annum from April 25, 2000 to May 25, 2000, and from the date of full payment to the date of full payment." The above ruling became final and conclusive on May 24, 2006.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received the claim for the instant judgment from the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and at that time, notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim.

C. On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a collection and seizure order with respect to the Defendant’s claim against a new bank and Industrial Bank of Korea, etc. (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Tukbu District Court 2013Tari7791), and issued a collection and seizure order on April 19, 2013, and the said order was served on the garnishee.

(hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) 2. Determination

A. The issues of this case 1) Regarding the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the judgment amount to the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the claim of this case was extinguished by prescription. 2) Accordingly, the issue of this case is whether the claim of this case was extinguished by prescription.

B. Determination as to the extinction of the prescription period of the instant judgment claim 1) Even in cases where the obligor’s claim against a third-party obligor is nonexistent at the time of seizure due to the lapse of the seized claim, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the enforcement claim shall be interrupted by executing the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da47330, Jan. 29, 2014). Therefore, whether the Defendant’s claim against a new bank, etc., a third-party obligor, a company, exists or not.