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

A. On March 15, 1994, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a loan on May 18, 2004, alleging that the Plaintiff lent KRW 4,000,000 to the date of repayment as of April 1, 1994 (Seoul District Court 2004DaDa182142), and the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 9, 2004 to the date of full payment.

B. On June 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Defendant again, and on October 4, 2012, the same judgment was rendered (this Court Decision No. 2012No. 27610, hereinafter “instant judgment”) and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the defendant filed the first lawsuit on May 18, 2004, after ten years from April 2, 1994, which was the day following the due date of payment of the claim which was the cause of the judgment of this case. Thus, since the above claim has expired, enforcement based on the judgment of this case shall not be allowed.

However, an objection as to a claim established by a judgment ought to have arisen after the pleadings have been concluded (see Article 44(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act), and even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, since the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was completed prior to the closing of argument in the instant judgment, this cannot be a legitimate ground for objection.

(In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 200, the plaintiff paid KRW 200,00 to the defendant on March 22, 2000, and it is recognized that the plaintiff approved the obligation to the defendant, and the extinctive prescription has been suspended. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.