1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by the Incheon District Court Decision 2005Gaga92208 Decided July 20, 2005.

1. Although there is no dispute over the cause of the claim or according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff by the Incheon District Court 2005Gada92208, and "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of 7,00,000 won and 20% per annum from July 16, 2005 to the date of full payment." The judgment in favor of the whole of the order was sentenced on July 20, 2005, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 11, 2005. According to the above facts, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant based on the above judgment was extinguished on August 11, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from August 11, 2005, which is the date the judgment became final and conclusive. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the prescription of this case cannot be permitted.

2. The Defendant’s defense and judgment stated to the effect that “the extinctive prescription was interrupted by executing a seizure and collection order before the completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above final judgment,” but there is no evidence to prove that the seizure based on the above final judgment was conducted before August 11, 2015. Rather, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the execution of the above final judgment based on the execution of the claim No. 3 and 4, which was filed by the Defendant on April 7, 2016, which was after the said final judgment expired, can only be recognized as having been cited by the above court on April 19, 2016. Therefore, the aforementioned defense is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.