1. The defendant's execution of the suit against the plaintiff is the Seoul Southern District Court 2006Kao-99.

1. The facts of recognition were determined by the court of Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006Kacal99 decided Apr. 16, 2007 that "the court of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is 8,042,830 won for the costs of lawsuit to be repaid to the defendant in the above court of Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2002Da51313 decided Nov. 24, 2004; Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na3955 decided Apr. 28, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da57957 decided Oct. 6, 2006; Decision 2006Da57957 decided Oct. 6, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of this case"). The above decision was finalized at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the claim for litigation costs under the decision of this case was extinguished due to the lapse of ten years from the date on which the above decision became final and conclusive. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of this case should be dismissed.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1, the Defendant asserted that, on June 14, 2012, a compulsory execution against corporeal movables was interrupted at this time by setting the Plaintiff’s domicile as the execution place under the Youngju District Court’s Young-dong Branch No. 20119, Jun. 14, 2012. However, according to the written evidence No. 4, the Defendant’s withdrawal of the above compulsory execution application on July 25, 2012 is recognized.

Article 168 Subparag. 2 of the Civil Act provides that “Attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition” shall be the cause interrupting extinctive prescription. Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that “Attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition shall have no effect of interrupting prescription in a case where it is revoked upon the request of the right holder or because it does not comply with

Here, "when a right holder's request is revoked" refers to cases where a right holder withdraws an application for attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition, and "the interruption of prescription has no effect" shall retroactively have the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription.