1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The case in which Busan District Court has applied for the suspension of compulsory execution.

1. In addition to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added, C filed a purchase price lawsuit against the plaintiff as Busan District Court 98Gaso14142, and the above court in the above case, "the plaintiff paid 3,169,500 won to C, and the delay damages therefor," which became final and conclusive on May 21, 1998, and the defendant acquired a claim under the judgment of this case from C, and obtained the succession execution clause on September 3, 2010.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription on May 22, 2008 and determination thereof

A. The plaintiff asserts that on May 22, 2008, 10 years passed since the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the claim of this case under the judgment of this case was extinguished after the statute of limitations expired.

The facts of the instant judgment, which became final and conclusive on May 21, 1998, are as seen earlier, and the fact that ten years have elapsed from the statute of limitations is apparent from the calendar.

However, according to the Eul evidence No. 2, C applied for the seizure of corporeal movables with the executory exemplification of the judgment of this case by designating the plaintiff to Busan District Court as the debtor, and the execution officer belonging to the above court was executing the seizure of corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff as D of March 9, 199, and such seizure of corporeal movables was called "the seizure of corporeal movables" in 199.

2) If the above company requested the seizure of corporeal movables from May 21, 1999 when the period of prescription expires from May 21, 1998 to May 21, 1998 (the foregoing date before March 9, 1999).

In the judgment of this case, the extinctive prescription of a claim is interrupted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to deem that corporeal movables were put up for auction after the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables in 199, and the above seizure is null and void or above.