1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added or emphasized the judgment on the argument that the defendant added or emphasized in the trial, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant submitted the letter of debt approval, conciliation, and undertaking (hereinafter “instant document”) on January 21, 2014, but failed to submit various accompanying documents thereafter. Since installment payments did not have been paid once from the first time, the submission of the instant document cannot be deemed as the approval of the obligation, or the approval of the obligation was null and void.

B. Determination 1) Recognition as the ground for suspending the extinctive prescription is established by indicating that the debtor who is a party to the extinctive prescription benefit is aware of the existence of a right to the person who will lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period or his/her agent. The method of indication does not require any form, and it is sufficient if the indication is made in a manner that allows the other party to the indication on the premise that the debtor is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation, to conceal the obligation by way of indicating that the debtor is aware of the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da947, Apr. 14, 1992; 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005; see, e.g., Table No. 1 of this case’s document, and Paragraph 1 of this case’s claim, including the Plaintiff’s claim, are included in the list of claims under the same paragraph and Paragraph 1 of this case’s claim.

Therefore, it is true.