1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, invoked by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following supplementary judgments.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant's commercial statute of limitations does not go against the principle of good faith.

B. Article 168 of the Civil Act provides for provisional seizure as the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription is because the creditor can be deemed to have exercised his right by provisional seizure. While the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, the exercise of right by the creditor of provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue. Therefore, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue until the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18622, 18639, Nov. 14, 2013).

However, the defendant prepared a letter of execution of this case on the condition that the provisional seizure of real estate was cancelled to the plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiff to repay KRW 20 million. However, even after the provisional seizure of the above real estate was cancelled by the plaintiff, it did not pay any money thereafter. On April 8, 2015, the defendant donated real estate owned by the defendant to H.

Considering the following circumstances: (a) the process of cancellation of provisional seizure of real estate as above; (b) the attitude of the defendant; (c) the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; (d) the general plaintiff and the defendant as the defendant; and (e) the time when the loan of this case was paid from the plaintiff to the defendant, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant constitutes cases where, prior to the completion of prescription, the defendant either made it impossible or considerably difficult for the plaintiff to exercise his right or interruption of prescription; (d) acted to believe such measures

Therefore, the defendant's status.