1. The defendant's judgment of Jeonju District Court was rendered in 2004Ga Office 49413 delivered on December 15, 2004 against the defendant's plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

A. C Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of credit card use price claim (hereinafter “the instant claim”) and was sentenced to the judgment as stated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 of the purport of admitting the entire claim on December 15, 2004 (hereinafter “the instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 5, 2005.

B. The Defendant received the instant claim from C Co., Ltd. and received a text of succession execution from this court. The said text of succession execution was served on the Plaintiff on January 30, 2010.

(c)

Based on this, the Defendant filed an application for a seizure and collection order against each of the deposit claims against D, E, F, G, and the Republic of Korea, with the head of the Jeonju District Court 2010, and as 1955, the Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order. On March 30, 2010, the above court issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “prior seizure and collection order”) upon the Defendant’s application, and the above order was served to the third debtor around that time.

(d)

In this regard, at the time of issuance of the preceding seizure and collection order, the Plaintiff did not have a deposit claim against the above third debtor (D Association, E Association, F Association, G Association, and Korea).

E. On the other hand, on August 24, 2020, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (other than the Jeonju District Court 2020, 2918) against the deposit claims against H.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The judgment seeking the payment of the instant claim did not bring an action seeking payment ten years after the final and conclusive date of January 5, 2005, and thus, the instant claim became extinct due to the completion of the statute of limitations.

B. The Defendant asserted that the seizure is still effective according to the preceding seizure and collection order, and thus, the extinction of prescription is suspended. However, the seizure and collection order for the non-existent claim becomes effective.