1. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 27, 1994, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to the deceased D, the inheritee of the Defendants (hereinafter “the deceased”), and on October 11, 1999, the principal was repaid, but the Plaintiff was not paid damages for delay amounting to KRW 22,091,442.

Therefore, the Defendants, a limited inheritor of the deceased, seek the payment of damages for delay within the scope of the deceased’s inherited property.

The Defendants asserted that the above claim for damages for delay (hereinafter “the claim of this case”) expired by the statute of limitations, but on February 24, 1997, the Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure against the deceased’s real estate under the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch Branch 97Kahap233 on the principal amount of the loan, and the provisional seizure remains valid until now, and the interruption of prescription against the principal claim of this case due to the provisional seizure is also effective against the claim of this case. Thus, the claim of this case did

B. Since 195, the Plaintiff had no record of seeking the payment of the instant claim against the Deceased or the Defendants, and thus, the instant claim expired by prescription.

The provisional attachment against the principal claim cannot be considered to have extended to the damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a creditor of the relevant legal doctrine claims a part of a provisional claim as a preserved bond and seizes a provisional seizure on the property owned by the debtor, the interruption of prescription is effective only on part of the preserved bond, and the interruption of prescription is not effective on the remaining claim not included in the preservation bond by provisional seizure.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 69Da3, Mar. 4, 1969). Damages for delay after the due date for payment for a loan extended by a bank as its business act is not a claim that is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, but a claim that is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act on a claim