1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant stated in the separate sheet does not exist.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff paid interest of KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant for three years from December 31, 1992 to December 31, 1995, and borrowed (hereinafter “instant obligation”) on the condition that the principal and interest shall be repaid from June 30, 200, and the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest after repayment of the principal and interest amount of KRW 1,20,000 on December 31, 1995, and ② the Defendant completed the registration of the Plaintiff’s D apartment at the time of Eup owned by the Plaintiff on July 12, 2005, but the period of extinctive prescription expired on April 30, 2008, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription expired on April 30, 2008.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Since 2010 to October 15, 2013, the extinctive prescription of the instant obligation was suspended since the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant obligation had been in arrears several times. 2) Article 174 of the Civil Act provides that “The maximum period of extinctive prescription shall not have the effect of interrupting prescription unless a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance for compromise, seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, or provisional disposition is made within six months.” (B) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 4, the Defendant appears to fall under the payment notice under Article 174 of the Civil Act, even if the Defendant sent the instant obligation to the Plaintiff within three times from January 8, 2010 to October 2013.