1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Suwon District Court Decision 2002Gahap14924 decided June 10, 2003.

1. On July 22, 1999, when driving a car owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant brought an action against the Plaintiff and C claiming for reimbursement under Article 682 of the Commercial Act against the Plaintiff and C as the Suwon District Court 2002Kahap14924, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, brought an action against the Plaintiff and C, against the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) the Defendant was shocked the city bus owned by D Co., Ltd., which was subscribed to mutual aid by the Defendant; and

On June 10, 2003, the above court rendered a judgment accepting part of the defendant's claim (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 12, 2003.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's claim based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff of this case was extinguished by the extinctive prescription period from August 12, 2003 to 10 years, which is the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive. Thus, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff of this case shall not be allowed

B. On March 23, 2010, before ten years have elapsed since the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations for the claim based on the instant judgment was suspended, since the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for property specification as the title of enforcement on March 23, 2010, which was the date when ten years have elapsed since the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

Therefore, if the creditor files an application for specification of the property with respect to the debtor for the realization of the claim based on the final judgment, and the decision is served on the debtor, the validity of the decision is recognized only as the "Peremptory", which is the cause of interrupting the extinctive prescription. Therefore, the interruption of the extinctive prescription by the decision on specification of the property is again effective within six months from the date