1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Based on the decision of performance recommendation confirmed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed an application for the attachment and collection order against the Defendant under Incheon District Court Branch Branch Order 2007TTTT 5664, and received the attachment and collection order on November 22, 2007. At that time, the above attachment and collection order were served on the obligor and the third obligor, and thus, the validity of the above attachment and collection order, which are the grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription, should be recognized.

Then, inasmuch as the Plaintiff withdrawn the application for the above attachment and collection order and served a notice of cancellation on May 26, 2008 on the garnishee, it shall be deemed that the ten-year extinctive prescription from May 26, 2008 when the compulsory execution procedure has been completed, and the ten-year extinctive prescription as of July 6, 2017 when the instant lawsuit was filed has not been completed.

B. Determination 1) In light of the foregoing legal principles, Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act provides that seizure, provisional seizure, and provisional disposition shall be the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription. Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that the interruption of extinctive prescription shall be null and void when the seizure, etc. is revoked upon the request of the right holder. In this case, the term “when the right holder cancels upon the request of the right holder” refers to the case where the right holder withdraws the application for seizure, etc., and the term “non-extinctive prescription interruption” refers to the case where the interruption of extinctive prescription becomes null and void retroactively” (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da63591, Nov. 13, 2014). In light of the above legal principles, even in cases of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily withdrawn the relevant claim seizure and collection order, and thus, the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the seizure becomes null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da166