A. On November 25, 2003, Nando Mutual Savings Bank, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking the payment of loans, which are the discount of notes, 743,755,300 won for the Plaintiff transferred from the Mutual Savings and Finance Company of Korea to the Plaintiff, as the Daegu District Court 2003da130186.

B. On September 2, 2004, the above court rendered a judgment as follows, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Plaintiff on or around the 17th of the same month, and the part against the Plaintiff was finalized on or around October 2, 2004.

(1) The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 743,755,300 and 21% per annum from June 29, 2002 to the date of full payment.

C. On June 3, 2016, the Defendant received the succeeding execution clause concerning the instant judgment, and applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff on the basis of the instant judgment around December 19, 2016, as the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2016TTT3178, and received a decision of seizure and collection order on December 21, 2016, and applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff as the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch B around February 7, 2017 based on the instant judgment.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number)

2. The statute of limitations interrupted by a judicial claim as to the claim is newly run from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the above judgment runs from October 2, 2004 when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

The Defendant, around December 19, 2016, did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had committed an act of suspending the extinctive prescription of the judgment amount claim prior to filing an application for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant participated in the C bankruptcy procedure, which is a joint and several surety of the instant claim, and received dividends, and thus, the extinctive prescription is interrupted. However, the grounds for interrupting the extinctive prescription against the joint and several surety,