A. On December 197, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 6,635,00 from the Defendant as of August 30, 1998, the due date for payment was determined and borrowed as of August 30, 1998, and Plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed Plaintiff A’s obligation to the Defendant.

B. The plaintiffs have become due and payable even after the date of reimbursement.

On August 9, 1999, the defendant applied for mediation as Busan District Court Branch 99ss20766 on August 9, 199.

C. On September 15, 1999, the above court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation that "the plaintiffs jointly and severally pay to the defendant 6,635,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from August 20, 1999 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the compulsory conciliation decision of this case"). The above decision was finalized on October 14, 1999.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As the conciliation of determination on the cause of a claim has the same effect as a judicial compromise, an application for conciliation has the same effect as interruption of prescription (Article 29 and Article 35(1) of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act). As such, once the cause of interruption has ceased to exist after the interruption of prescription, the extinctive prescription again commences from the time when the cause of interruption ceases to exist. As such, the claim of this case is new one from October 14, 1999 when the decision of compulsory conciliation became final and conclusive, and a claim based on the compulsory conciliation decision of this case has already expired on October 14, 2009 after the lapse of ten years from October 14, 199.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, compulsory execution based on the instant compulsory adjustment decision shall not be allowed.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that the Plaintiffs renounced the benefits of the completion of extinctive prescription since the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to repay their claims under the instant compulsory adjustment order around April 2016 and around May 2016. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is rejected.

3. Thus, the plaintiffs' conclusion is that of this case.