1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence No. 1 and No. 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the fact that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 11, 2006, which became final and conclusive on May 11, 2006, can be acknowledged, and it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 24, 2018 without any counter-proof and there is no counter-proof.

The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case was extinguished due to the fact that the cause of the claim of this case was extinguished due to the completion of prescription, and the defendant asserts that prescription was interrupted.

According to the records in Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act) and Article 168 subparagraph 1 through 3 of the Act, in the case of a seizure, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition, the extinctive prescription shall be interrupted (Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act), the defendant requested the Seoul Southern District Court to issue a seizure and collection order on June 10, 201 and received the decision on June 14, 201. The above decision was served on the third debtor on June 17, 201. The defendant collected KRW 1,516,83 of the same month from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation among the third debtor based on the above seizure and collection order. According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the claim in this case was suspended from the time of the above seizure and collection order before the expiration of 10 years (by May 11, 2016). Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case was clearly justified, and the plaintiff's claim in this case was not completed again before the expiration of the prescription period.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.