1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The non-party 203da378576, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, and "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43,182,959 won and 41,301,845 won among them, interest rateing to 18% per annum from March 5, 1999 to November 8, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 28, 2004.

On November 29, 2013, the Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above judgment claim to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant thereof at that time.

On April 7, 2014, the Defendant signed on the “request for approval and conciliation of obligations and letter of undertaking (for temporary repayment)” stating that “the Defendant’s amount of debt against the Plaintiff is KRW 141,380,783,” and sent it to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a judicial claim against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the claim for the said judgment, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that “the interest in the protection of rights is unlawful as there is no interest in the protection of rights,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 2,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da207996 Decided October 18, 2017, Dong Branch of Busan District Court Decision 2017Da20796 Decided Oct. 18, 2017). [Ground]: The plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit in this case was brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and that the defendant has already expired the claim in this case.

However, according to the above facts, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified, since the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund received a request for approval and conciliation of obligations from the defendant on April 7, 2014 or filed a lawsuit or filed a lawsuit after the fact that it had become final and conclusive from January 28, 2004 after ten years since the Seoul District Court Decision 2003Da378576 decided.

On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff again renounced the benefit of prescription by submitting to the Plaintiff the “request for recognition and conciliation of debt and letter of undertaking.”