1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 99Da76204 delivered on March 12, 199.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 1999, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the check amount (Seoul Central District Court 99 Ghana76204). On March 12, 199, the above court rendered a judgment with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant and its delay damages” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the above judgment was finalized on April 11, 199.

B. On July 18, 2007, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables (Seoul Central District Court No. 2007No. 5991, hereinafter “instant application”) with the title of execution, and seized the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables.

However, the defendant withdrawn the above application for compulsory execution and withdrawn the above application as of November 15, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim as to the cause of claim runs anew from the time the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in the check amount runs extinctive prescription from April 11, 1999 when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and on April 11, 2009 when ten years have elapsed since April 11, 1999, the statute of limitations expired.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall not be allowed unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted because the defendant seized the plaintiff's corporeal movables, and Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that "a seizure, provisional seizure or provisional disposition shall not have the effect of interrupting prescription if it is revoked upon request of the right holder or by failing to comply with the provisions of law." The defendant's application of this case was made based on the judgment of this case and its execution was carried out, but the above application was withdrawn at the request of the defendant thereafter.