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

A. On January 16, 2002, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for damages as the Jeonju District Court 2002Gada4739, and the above court on April 3, 2002, rendered a decision as a substitute for the conciliation of the decision (hereinafter “instant decision”), that “if delay is made, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 7,500,000 to the Defendant by April 30, 2002. If delay is made, the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.” The decision was written in the written statement of the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant executive title”), and the above decision became final and conclusive on May 12, 202.

B. Since March 23, 2012, the Defendant filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff with the Jeonju District Court 2012Gada31303 on March 23, 2012, and the said court decided to recommend performance that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 7,500,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from May 1, 2002 to the date of full payment.” The said decision became final and conclusive on April 21, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged the parties did not receive a service of a decision substituting the conciliation of this case. The title of this case is invalid, and even if the title of this case is effective.

Even if the claim indicated in the executive title of this case was extinguished after the lapse of 10 years from the date of confirmation.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the decision of performance recommendation in the lawsuit filed by the defendant in 2012 has no effect of interrupting prescription since the plaintiff was unable to receive service, and eventually, compulsory execution based on the executive title of this case should be denied

As to this, the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation was confirmed on April 21, 2012, and the extinctive prescription has been suspended, and the compulsory execution based on the instant executive title is still valid.

B. (1) The Plaintiff is entitled to the instant enforcement title.