1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures with Daejeon District Court 2015Da41123, and received a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures from the said court on October 16, 2015.

B. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the above court a list of individual rehabilitation creditors stating the Defendant’s claim for indemnity amount against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) on November 23, 2001. According to the fact that the Defendant did not raise any objection within the objection period, the participating officers, etc. of the above court entered the instant claim in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors.

C. After that, the Plaintiff was absent on two occasions on the date of the meeting of creditors, on March 28, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to discontinue the individual rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff, and the said decision was finalized on April 13, 2016.

On July 19, 2018, based on the original copy of the table of individual rehabilitation creditors, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s wage claim under the Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2018TTT 5478.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the list of individual rehabilitation creditors should not be permitted since the claim of this case has expired by prescription. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff submitted the list of individual rehabilitation creditors by entering the claim of this case in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors constitutes a waiver of prescription benefits, and thus,

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the statute of limitations expires if the claim in this case is not exercised by November 23, 2001, which was within five years from November 23, 2001, the date of occurrence, and by November 23, 2006. The Defendant’s commencement of compulsory execution on the basis of the table of individual rehabilitation creditors around July 2018.

However, where an obligor has submitted a list of individual rehabilitation creditors in the individual rehabilitation procedure, the interruption of prescription is effective for the obligee's claims recorded in such list.