A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2007Kadan20373 on August 30, 2002 against the Defendant seeking payment of '50,000,000 won and interest or damages for delay from August 30, 202 to the date of full payment, and conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 5, 2007 during the said lawsuit.

The mediation clause is as follows:

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 by March 15, 2008. If the Defendant fully pays the above amount by the payment date, the remainder of the Defendant’s obligations to the Plaintiff is extinguished. If the Defendant is unable to repay all of the above amount by the payment date, 50,000,000 (if there is any amount repaid until the payment date, the deducted amount) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20,00 per annum from the date following the above payment date to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff by March 15, 2008, as stipulated in the above conciliation clause, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 16, 2017 for the extension of the statute of limitations, when the statute of limitations for the claim based on the above conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 16, 2008 to September 30, 2015, as the Plaintiff seeks from March 16, 2008, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The instant lawsuit for the interruption of the prescription of claims under the instant conciliation protocol is a benefit of lawsuit.

3. The defendant's assertion pointing out that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff and thus cannot accept the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, it is therefore.