1. The Defendant’s repayment of the loan to the Plaintiff by Suwon District Court 2007Gau 134762.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay 5,500,000 won and 20% per annum from September 2, 1990 to October 11, 1997, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment” (hereinafter “the instant performance recommendation decision”), and the said decision became final and conclusive on December 4, 2007. The Defendant received a claim based on the instant performance recommendation decision from Nonparty C on January 11, 2008 and received a claim based on the instant performance recommendation decision and received a succession execution clause on April 22, 2008 [the grounds for recognition], each of subparagraph 1 and each of subparagraph 3], and each of subparagraph 1 and each of subparagraph 3 were not disputed.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired from the time when the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the debt based on the above decision has expired by prescription.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case was not expired since the Defendant’s claim based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case was suspended due to the Defendant’s claim seizure and collection order, and the period of extinctive prescription was newly run from the time when the Defendant submitted the collection report. As the Defendant filed an application for the entry in the defaulters’s list under the Jung-gu District Court Decision 2019Kau1334 on October 1

B. Determination 1) Of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription, the interruption of extinctive prescription by seizure may be deemed to have terminated when the seizure is rescinded or when the execution procedure is terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017). In cases where the obligee subject to the seizure and collection order collects the seized claim from the third obligor and reports the collection of the seized claim under Article 236(1) of the Civil Execution Act, other seizure and provisional seizure are made until such time.