1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. On December 22, 2006, the period of prescription expired upon receipt of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Ka 2006Ka 8607 Decided December 22, 2006, which was the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is brought to discontinue the statute of limitations for the interruption of the claim.

2. On December 22, 2006, the defendant retired from office on April 27, 2007 from the Korea Housing Finance Corporation as the person who was the third debt of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Kadan 2006Ka 8607 decision of provisional seizure of claims. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 10 years thereafter, the statute of limitations expired and the claim became extinct.

3. That the provisional seizure under Article 168 of the Civil Act, which is determined by the reason of interruption of prescription, was an exercise of the right by the creditor by the provisional seizure.

This is because the provisional seizure is effective, while the provisional seizure is still effective, the exercise of the right by the creditor of the provisional seizure is continuing.

As such, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue to be effective while the preservation of execution of provisional seizure remains effective (Supreme Court Decision 201Da10044 Decided May 13, 201). Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1 evidence No. B, the defendant may recognize the fact that he retired from the Korea Housing Finance Corporation on April 27, 2007. The provisional seizure of the plaintiff's claim at that time when the defendant retired from office was omitted, and the extinction of prescription shall continue to run anew from that time.

On the other hand, the date when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case was clearly recorded on June 24, 2020, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of ten years from the date when the defendant retired.

Therefore, since the claim of the payment order stated in the purport of the claim has already expired, it is difficult to suspend the prescription, and it is so decided as per Disposition.