In other words, on November 15, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for reimbursement of the amount of reimbursement with the same court (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”) on November 7, 2017, which was served on the Plaintiff on November 27, 2017. The instant performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.

[Fact-finding] According to the above facts of recognition, extinctive prescription of an obligation following the final decision on performance recommendation for the 2007 Ghana 2165624 case has expired on October 24, 2017. Since a lawsuit for claim for indemnity payment was filed subsequently, the decision on performance recommendation of this case is related to a claim for which extinctive prescription has expired, and compulsory execution based thereon should be denied.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's failure to file an objection after receiving the decision on performance recommendation of this case constitutes the waiver of prescription benefits.

Determination as to whether a person has expressed his/her intent to waive the prescription benefits ought to be made objectively and reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules and the common sense of society in line with the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively taking into account the substance, motive, circumstance, and genuine intent to achieve through the act indicated in the act or expression of intent, and the expression of intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56187, Jul. 25, 2013). Moreover, the mere fact that a person received a decision of performance recommendation but did not raise any objection cannot be deemed as having expressed his/her intent

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.