1. The defendant has the executive force of 2004Kadan4562 delivered on October 7, 2004 against the defendant's plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”)

(1) On October 16, 1999, the Defendant agreed to return KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”).

(2) On October 7, 2004, the court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay to the Defendant (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”) against the Plaintiff in Busan District Court’s branch branch. (2) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the performance of the above joint and several liability obligation (No. 2004Gadan4562).

The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 1, 2005 through the appellate court.

3) On September 29, 2016, the non-party company filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation against the defendant in Busan District Court’s Dong Branch. On this occasion, the court of first instance (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office of Non-party Company rendered a favorable judgment against the non-party company on the ground that “the obligation of this case was extinguished by prescription, and the approval of the obligation of the non-party company did not have any evidence to acknowledge it.” The defendant appealed against the non-party company on the ground that “the obligation of this case was extinguished by prescription on October 13, 2013,” and on September 29, 2016, the appellate court dismissed the defendant’s appeal on the ground that “the obligation of this case was extinguished by prescription of the non-party company.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the obligation of this case was extinguished by extinctive prescription on October 13, 2013, and according to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation, the above joint and several surety obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant was extinguished. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the final judgment of this case should be dismissed.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff .