1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2007, the defendant, the plaintiff, and C rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation that "the plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay KRW 34,100,000 to the defendant by August 9, 2007" (hereinafter "the decision of this case"). The decision of this case was finalized on September 1, 2007.

B. On September 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) rendered the instant decision under the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Order 2017TTT 102145 as the executive title; and (b) received an order to seize and seize the claims against D with respect to the claims owned by the Plaintiff against D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the time when the defendant seized the plaintiff's claims based on the decision of this case was clearly apparent after the lapse of 10 years from September 1, 2007, which was the date when the decision of this case became final and conclusive, and the defendant's claims against the plaintiff based on the decision of this case had already been extinguished by prescription, so compulsory execution based on the defendant's decision of this case shall not be allowed.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription was suspended since the plaintiff, who is the debtor, received a seizure and collection order against E and F, which is the garnishee, before ten years have passed since the decision of this case became final and conclusive and the decision of this case was issued.

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the defendant's decision of this case as the title of execution under the Daegu District Court Branch of Magu District Court 2013TTTT4255 on September 10, 2013 is recognized as being subject to the defendant's order of seizure and collection based on the defendant's decision of this case, since the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of existence of right of retention against E and F and all claims arising in relation thereto (including judgment, compromise, conciliation, recognition, agreement) are recognized.