1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts of recognition, the defendant (formerly, C Co., Ltd.) filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul District Court 99 Ghana1059493. On March 9, 200, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 920,830 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from March 1, 2000 to the full payment (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case"). The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 5, 200, the defendant may recognize the fact that he received a collection order against the plaintiff's lease deposit claims as the claim for the judgment of this case with the Seoul Northern District Court 2005Ma3127 on June 27, 2005.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion has fully repaid the claim of this case, and since the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case has expired, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

B. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s repayment as to the assertion on repayment of the obligation. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

Next, as to the claim for the completion of the extinctive prescription, the fact that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has elapsed after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive is apparent. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order on June 27, 2005, which was before the ten-year period elapsed after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive. As such, the instant claim for the judgment of this case was suspended on June 9, 2005, which was the date of application for the seizure and collection order, and the effect of the interruption of prescription by seizure continues until the compulsory execution procedure is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017). The aforementioned seizure and collection order were revoked or rescinded.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the enforcement procedure has been completed or completed, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.