1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is based on the Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na5490 delivered on June 14, 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment of KRW 63,805,278 and damages for delay against the Plaintiff under this Court Decision 2004Da4843, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on May 25, 2005.

B. The defendant appealed from Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na5490 on June 14, 2006, and the appellate court revoked the above first instance judgment on June 14, 2006, and ordered the plaintiff to pay "25,170,805 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 20, 2004 to June 14, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" to the defendant.

The judgment of this case was finalized on July 7, 2006. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination:

A. The defendant's claim for the judgment of this case runs the ten-year statute of limitations from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 18, 2019, when ten years have elapsed from July 7, 2006, the date when the judgment in this case became final and conclusive, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case seeking the denial of compulsory execution by asserting the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the claim in this case. Barring any special circumstance, the defendant's claim in this case in this case shall be deemed to have expired after the statute of limitations expires, and compulsory execution based on the judgment in this case shall be rejected.

B. Around 2015, the Defendant’s summary of the allegation 1) filed an application with the Plaintiff to specify the property, and the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the list. In addition, the Defendant rendered a decision to enter the list of defaulters in accordance with the Defendant’s application for the entry in the list of defaulters. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription regarding the instant claim was suspended. 2) In order to realize the claim based on the final judgment, the Plaintiff filed an application to specify the property against the obligor under the Civil Execution Act.