A. From December 16, 2005 to March 30, 2006, the Plaintiff failed to refund KRW 112,000,000 out of KRW 160,000,000 lent five times to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit claiming loans in this court.

B. On December 12, 2008, the following mediation (hereinafter “instant mediation”) was established between the original Defendant and the original Defendant (hereinafter “instant mediation”) and each of the mediation clause. Since then, the Defendant did not have paid the Plaintiff money pursuant to the mediation clause(1).

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,00,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from July 7, 2007 to the day of complete payment.

2. At the same time, the Plaintiff received the above money, and at the same time, deliver a supply contract and receipt as to 19.5 square meters for the exclusive use area of the building C, to the Defendant, and transfer all the rights related thereto to the Defendant.

3. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

4. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

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

2. Determination

A. Even if there exists a final and conclusive protocol of conciliation in which res judicata has become final and conclusive with respect to monetary claims, an exceptional lawsuit may be brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription in cases where the ten-year period for a claim is imminent, and in such a case, the judgment in the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the content of the protocol of conciliation in the prior suit (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018

B. According to the premise facts, the instant conciliation was concluded on December 12, 2008, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the statute of limitations to this court on June 25, 2018, immediately before the lapse of ten years from the date of the formation of the instant conciliation. Thus, the Defendant, as seen in the foregoing legal doctrine, is entitled to seek the Plaintiff from July 7, 2007, including the content of the conciliation and in particular the conciliation clause (1).