1. The defendant shall pay 25,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 7, 2006 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for the loan of the Suwon District Court No. 2005da7058, 20058, alleging that the Plaintiff loaned money several times between 2003 and 2004 to the Defendant, and received a partial repayment and did not receive a total of KRW 30,478,50 from October 2005.

B. On July 6, 2006, the defendant was present at the conciliation date and the conciliation was concluded with the plaintiff's attorney. The conciliation clause is as follows.

The defendant shall pay 25,00,000 won to the plaintiff until October 6, 2006. If the defendant fails to pay the above amount by the above date, the damages for delay calculated by adding 20% per annum to the damages for delay calculated from the day after the above date to the day of full payment.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the statute of limitations as the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above conciliation protocol is imminent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4's partial entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25 million won with 20% interest per annum from October 7, 2006 to the day of full payment. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case for the interruption of prescription under the above conciliation protocol is a benefit of lawsuit.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable since it did not borrow money to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to his/her father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s debt. In light of the foregoing, the instant protocol of mediation has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and thus res judicata takes place between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104960, 104977, Mar. 27, 2014).