beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 30, 2005, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff A and the joint guarantor B, who are the principal debtor, against the plaintiff A and the joint guarantor B, and the above court rendered a judgment that on November 10, 2000 to April 28, 2005, the plaintiffs jointly and severally paid the defendant 9,913,609 won and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 19% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 11, 2005.
B. On January 29, 2013, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against Plaintiff A’s D Co., Ltd. as the principal debtor under the Daegu District Court Residential Support 2013TTT125, and received the order of seizure and collection on January 30, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above judgment should be dismissed, since the extinctive prescription of the judgment bond of this case has expired.
In light of the foregoing, the extinctive prescription of a claim based on a judgment is completed after the lapse of ten years from the time the judgment becomes final and conclusive (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the extinctive prescription is interrupted due to the creditor’s seizure (Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act), and the interruption of the prescription against the principal obligor shall affect the guarantor’s performance (Article 440 of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive on August 11, 2005, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff A, who is the principal obligor, to seize and collect the claim on January 29, 2013 and issued a collection order on January 30, 2013, which was before the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive, and thus the extinctive prescription of the judgment of this case was suspended.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.