1. The defendant shall pay 50 million won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 1, 2009 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming payment with the defendant on January 25, 2008 at the rate of 25% per annum from September 1, 2001 to the date of full payment of the agreed amount of KRW 45 million and the amount of KRW 25% per annum from September 1, 2001 to the date of full payment. While the lawsuit is pending, the above court shall pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million until December 31, 2008, and if delay, it shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant did not raise any objection, thereby making a decision in lieu of adjustment to the purport that the above decision is made, and the above decision is made under the same year.

7. 4. Recognizing the established facts as they are.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff has a claim in lieu of the above conciliation against the defendant, and has filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of extinctive prescription of the above claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as requested by the plaintiff within the scope of interest rate of 50 million won and damages for delay set forth in the above decision from January 1, 2009 to the date of complete payment.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment that the mediation is established according to the plaintiff's unilateral argument although the defendant did not bear any obligation against the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

However, in a case where a decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive because the parties are not dissatisfied with the decision entered in the protocol, the above decision protocol has the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, such as a protocol of judicial conciliation, and thus res judicata takes effect between the parties. Therefore, it is difficult to deny the validity of the above protocol due to a separate question unless there are grounds such as the rightful invalidity of the final

The defendant's assertion that is against res judicata is against.