2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the claim for the amount agreed upon by the Government Branch of the Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court) No. 99Da17432. At the time, the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the Defendants and terminated the said agreement while jointly operating the fiber processing business. The Plaintiff was promised to pay the said amount of KRW 34,241,670, and Defendant B, as the principal debtor, and Defendant C, as the principal debtor, jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. 2) On June 24, 1999, the above court ruled that “The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff and severally, Defendant B shall pay the said amount of KRW 34,241,670 and its amount of KRW 34,241,670 from May 9, 199; Defendant C shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from April 22, 199 to the date of full payment.” The judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 1999.

(3) On May 17, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by Defendant C on the basis of the authentic copy of a prior final judgment with executory power. Accordingly, the case for compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Jung-gu District Court D, which commenced accordingly, was concluded by the Plaintiff on April 18, 2008 by being distributed KRW 9,841,735 on the date of distribution. 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition,’s fact that there is no ground for recognition, and each of the descriptions in Gap’s evidence 1 through 4

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit was filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription since April 18, 2008, when the compulsory execution procedure against the Defendant C-owned real estate was completed, the ten-year extinctive prescription period of the claim based on the previous final and conclusive judgment. Accordingly, the Defendant B did not promise the Plaintiff to pay the settlement amount upon the termination of the business, and the said claim was also extinguished by the previous final and conclusive judgment.