1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C for a claim for damages (this Court Decision 2006Da11340, Nov. 10, 2006). On November 10, 2006, the above court issued a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 35 million up to December 29, 2006, but if the above amount is not paid by the above date, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount plus damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the date of the payment to the day of full payment.” The above ruling was finalized on December 6, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”). (b)

In around 2010, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order with the debtor as the plaintiff and the third debtor as nine financial institutions, including the National Bank of Korea, etc. (The Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2010TY 2010TY 5395). The above court issued a seizure and collection order on August 23, 2010, and around that time, the above order reached the third debtor.

C. On February 27, 2018, the Defendant applied for a compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the instant recommendation for reconciliation, and at that time, the execution of seizure was completed following the said request.

(The grounds for recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, shall be stated in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2018No. 402, hereinafter “instant attachment”).

2. Determination

A. Since the defendant's claim based on the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case by the plaintiff's assertion has expired in 10 years since it became final and conclusive, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the above recommendation shall be dismissed.

B. Determination 1) The fact that the Defendant applied for the seizure of this case on February 27, 2018, which was ten years from December 6, 2006, which was the date when the recommendation for reconciliation of this case became final and conclusive, is apparent as to the fact that the Defendant applied for the seizure of this case. 2) Meanwhile, in cases where the obligee seized or provisionally attached the obligor’s claim against the garnishee, the obligee’s claim against the obligor against the third obligor.