1. The defendant's Jeonju District Court of the Jeonju Branch of the Namwon District Court of the Republic of Korea, 2002Ga Office 286.9.10

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case and the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. On September 10, 2002, the Korea Saemaeul Community Fund (C, D and E are jointly and severally engaged in 5,571,850 won and 4,500,000 won per annum from September 3, 2002 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the instant execution recommendation decision”). The instant execution recommendation decision was rendered on September 3, 2002 (hereinafter “the instant execution recommendation decision”), with the content that “the payment of 18% interest per annum from September 3, 2002 to the date of full payment”) was decided on September 10, 2002 that “the payment of 5,50,000 won per annum to the Korea Saemaul Community Fund” (hereinafter “the instant execution recommendation decision”). The instant decision was all finalized around that time.

(C) September 27, 2002, and September 26, 2002, respectively, for D.

On August 3, 2012, the Defendant acquired the claim based on the decision of execution recommendation of the instant case from the Seocho Saemaeul Community Fund.

C. D Around April 7, 2005, died, and the Plaintiff is a father and wife of D.

(2) On September 26, 2002, the fact that the decision of performance recommendation of this case was finalized on September 26, 2002 was made on February 2, 2015, and barring any special circumstance, D’s claims against D’s inheritors based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case were extinguished by the extinctive prescription on September 26, 2012, which was 10 years from the date of the decision.

I would like to say.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the statute of limitations of the above claim has been interrupted by compulsory execution of C-owned movables which are different debtors of the decision of performance recommendation of this case.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the attachment of movables owned C on November 19, 2012 is recognized in the Jeonju District Court 2012No313 rendered by the Defendant based on the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case.

However, inasmuch as the said compulsory execution was conducted after September 26, 2012, the extinctive prescription of the said claim was completed (based on C’s standard, the extinctive prescription has expired on September 27, 2012, and the said compulsory execution was completed thereafter), it cannot be deemed that the said claim has been interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant.