1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a promissory note claim No. 2008Gauri2087 against the Plaintiff.

On March 5, 2009, the judgment in favor of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant judgment”) was rendered, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 26th of the same month.

B. On April 3, 2019, the Defendant filed a claim attachment and collection order with the Daegu District Court resident support 2019TTT 10454 with the title of execution, and received the cited decision on April 4, 2019. The said decision was served on the Plaintiff on April 17, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The period of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment on the cause of the claim is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). It is clear that ten years have elapsed since the date of the closing of argument in this case as of the date of the conclusion of argument in this case.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was completed by prescription, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall not be permitted unless there are special circumstances.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 evidence of the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant, as a subsequent suit, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on March 22, 2019, which was before ten years have elapsed since the date of the final judgment of the instant case, as the Incheon District Court Branch Decision No. 2019 Ghana7439, March 22, 2019. The Defendant’s favorable judgment was issued on July 4, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 8, 2019.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim based on the instant judgment was interrupted on March 22, 2019 and the extinctive prescription was interrupted on March 22, 2019, and the judgment based on the subsequent suit became final and conclusive, and the ten-year extinctive prescription is newly run again from August 8, 2019. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion pointing this out has merit, and the Plaintiff

3. Conclusion.