1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff in Busan District Court Decision 200Gaso14371 is enforced based on the decision on the purchase price case.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 5, 2000, Busan District Court Decision 2000Gaso14371, which the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff, the above court rendered a judgment on September 5, 200 that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 610,000 and delay damages therefor to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant judgment”; and the claim ordering payment in the instant judgment was finalized on October 11, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1's entry, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the instant claim becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, its extinctive prescription is ten years, and it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 11, 2000 and April 4, 2017, which was the date when the instant judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the statute of limitations expired for the instant claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking to exclude the enforcement force of the judgment of this case is with merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. After the Defendant’s instant judgment became final and conclusive, on November 22, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for an explanation of property against the Plaintiff with the Busan District Court 2016Kao4192, and the said court cited it on January 18, 2017. As such, the statute of limitations for the instant claim was interrupted.

B. Therefore, if the decision was served on the obligor, the application to specify the property is only one of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription, and the application has only the effect as a “peremptory” as stipulated under Article 174 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4118, Feb. 11, 1992). The peremptory notice does not have the effect of interrupting prescription in the event of a judicial claim, participation in bankruptcy, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance for compromise, seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, and provisional disposition within six months (see Article 174 of the Civil Act). In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant filed a lawsuit within six months from the date on which the decision to specify the property was served on the Plaintiff.