A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, including a loan, etc., as Busan District Court Decision 2009Da52546.

B. The conciliation was concluded on November 2, 2009, and the conciliation was formulated on November 2, 2009, and “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 40 million by November 15, 2010. If the Defendant delays the payment of the said amount, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus 20% interest per annum from November 16, 2010 to the date of full payment.”

C. On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on July 12, 2019 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims under the instant conciliation protocol, and the Defendant’s objection was converted to litigation procedures.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Even if there exists a final and conclusive protocol of conciliation in which res judicata has become final and conclusive with respect to monetary claims, an exceptional lawsuit may be brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription in cases where the ten-year period for a claim is imminent, and in such a case, the judgment in the subsequent suit shall not conflict with the content of the protocol of conciliation in the prior suit (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018

B. According to the above premise facts, the instant conciliation was concluded on November 2, 2009, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of prescription on July 12, 2019, immediately before the lapse of 10 years from the date the conciliation was completed. Accordingly, in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 16, 2010 to the date of full payment.

C. As to this, the defendant argues that he did not pay the above money to the defendant since he did not make a loan to the defendant. However, the defendant's above assertion is that the defendant is not obligated to pay the debt under the mediation protocol of this case.