The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to secure the payment of the underlying claim, if the obligee exercises his right by seizing the obligor’s property with the claim right against the bill, the extinctive prescription of the underlying claim shall be interrupted;

However, in a case where the statute of limitations has already expired, even if the obligor’s property is seized with the claim extinguished by the statute of limitations, it cannot be deemed lawful exercise of rights to realize the claim for a bill or the claim for a cause, and thus, the statute of limitations for the claim cannot be deemed interrupted by such seizure.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record on May 13, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da6345, May 13, 2010). The Plaintiff lent KRW 8 million to the Defendant at around 2000 without fixing the due date for payment. On January 20, 200, the Defendant issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 8 million to secure the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation, and prepared the relevant deed even around that time. The Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order on the Defendant’s deposit claim based on the instant promissory note No. 1209, Nov. 12, 2009.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the Supreme Court precedents as seen earlier, it is apparent that the time when the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order regarding the Defendant’s deposit claims is the time when three years elapsed, which is the extinctive prescription period of the instant promissory note claims. Thus, even if the Defendant’s property was seized by using the same claim extinguished by the extinctive prescription period as the claim for a promissory note claim, the extinctive prescription period of the loan claim, which is

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s loan claim was interrupted by a seizure and collection order, which covers the instant promissory note claim against the Plaintiff.