beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 21, 2006, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for the price of goods. The court rendered a service to the plaintiff by public notice, and on September 14, 2006, rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,542,00 won with 5% interest per annum from May 2, 2003 to August 29, 2006 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case," and the defendant's claim based on the judgment of this case was referred to as "the claim of this case"). The plaintiff filed an appeal for full payment, but the appeal was withdrawn, and the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on October 13, 206.
B. When the Plaintiff did not repay to the Defendant the obligation based on the instant judgment, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff on October 30, 2006, with the title of execution of the instant judgment, as the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2007TTT7028. On January 11, 2007, the above court received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against each of the deposited claims against the Plaintiff’s national bank, the new bank, the Hansung Bank, the Han Bank, the Han Bank, and the Korean Bank. The seizure and collection order of the instant claim were served to the said third obligor around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim as to the cause of claim runs anew from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the Defendant’s claim based on the judgment of this case run from October 13, 2006, for which the judgment became final and conclusive.
Therefore, the Defendant’s instant claim is deemed to have expired on October 12, 2016, which was ten years after October 13, 2006. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall be deemed to have been completed.