1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On November 14, 2006, the basic facts E filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 2006Ga7806, and the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to E 60 million won and an amount at the rate of 20% per annum from February 24, 2006 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2006.

E around January 208, as the Daegu District Court Branch Branch 2008TTB6, applied for a seizure and collection order against the Defendant F with respect to the claim for the construction price against the Defendant’s F as the execution claim. On January 14, 2008, the seizure and collection order for the instant claim was issued (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) and around that time, the said order was served on the Defendant and the third debtor.

E Dec. 31, 2012, died on December 31, 2012, and the Plaintiffs are their successors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. There is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription only where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on the final judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). B.

However, the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the application for the seizure and collection order of this case before ten years elapse from the date the judgment became final and conclusive.

Although it is unclear when the execution procedure based on the collection order of this case is terminated, the extinctive prescription period of the judgment of this case as of January 14, 2008 when the seizure and collection order of this case was issued remains approximately 8 months as of the date of closing argument of this case, even if the extinctive prescription of the judgment of this case is newly progress as of January 14, 2008.

Therefore, the claim of this case is extinctive prescription.