1. The defendant's claim against the plaintiff for the credit card use amount of the Gwangju District Court 2002Gapo263555.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The identity of the stock company was determined on January 21, 2003 by filing a lawsuit on the claim for payment of credit card use price against the plaintiff by the Gwangju District Court 2002Gapo263555, and the decision was finalized on January 21, 2003.

B. The identity of a stock company was transferred to the defendant the bonds based on the decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “the bonds in this case”) against the plaintiff, and the identity of the stock company was transferred to the same securitization company, and the same securitization company transferred the above bonds to the defendant in order.

C. On May 16, 2015, the Defendant issued an execution clause to succeed to the decision of performance recommendation for credit card use payment cases with the Gwangju District Court 2002Gau263555, and by using this clause, issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. as the Gwangju District Court 2016 Tau32389.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim as to the cause of claim shall commence anew from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the statute of limitations run from January 21, 2003 when the decision of performance recommendation becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant claim shall not be allowed, barring any special circumstance, since the statute of limitations has expired on January 21, 2013, when ten years have elapsed since January 21, 2003.

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant asserted that the statute of limitations was interrupted since the defendant given a peremptory notice to the plaintiff, such as requesting the repayment of the claim of this case through continuous mail delivery, etc., but the defendant given a peremptory notice

Even if an action is brought again within six months from then, the interruption of prescription for a peremptory notice shall become null and void unless the procedure prescribed in Article 174 of the Civil Act is continued, such as attachment, provisional attachment, and provisional disposition.