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

2. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including various numbers), the Daegu High Credit Union filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim of the loan Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant claim Nos. 1 and 2”) on the ground that the transferor of the instant claim No. 3 claims No. 1 and 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant claim No. 1 and 2”), and the above court’s performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive on Sept. 30, 2009; on Oct. 1, 2009; on Oct. 1, 2009, the execution recommendation decision against the defendant Eul was issued on Oct. 30, 200; on Oct. 1, 2009, the Daegu Highbuk High Credit Union requested against the defendant A for the payment order of the loan No. 3 claims of this case as the ground for the execution order of the instant claim No. 1 and the defendant Daegu High Credit Union No. 31 as the execution order of the instant claim No. 31 and the execution order of the loan No. 1. 31.

3. A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exists in a case where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, and a claim based on a final judgment has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A successor to a party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.

Since the payment order or the decision of performance recommendation has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (see Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 5-7 of the Trial of Small Claims Act).