1. The defendant's decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Central District Court's 2005 Ghana3827 dated March 7, 2005.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband C issued and delivered a copy of a promissory note with face value of two million won and due date on April 10, 2004 to the Defendant.

B. On March 7, 2005, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and C seeking the payment of the above bill, and on March 7, 2005, the court rendered a decision of performance recommendation that "the plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the defendant 2 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 11, 2004 to March 11, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."

(Seoul Central District Court 2005da38227, hereinafter “instant decision”). The Plaintiff did not file an objection on March 11, 2005 with a certified copy of the instant decision, and the instant decision became final and conclusive on March 26, 2005.

C. However, on December 23, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity and bankruptcy on March 14, 2006 and received a declaration of bankruptcy on March 14, 2006 and a decision to grant immunity on May 24, 2006, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 16, 2006.

(Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2005Hadan17132, 2005 17492). However, the claim in this case was not entered in the list of creditors.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has expired at the expiration of 10 years from the date when the instant decision became final and conclusive, and the Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations has been interrupted by filing an application for the Defendant’s seizure and collection order.

According to the purport of the whole statement and argument of the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the defendant received a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's deposit claim by designating the claim of this case as the claim of this case before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period (Seoul Northern District Court 2014TTT24188), and the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case is interrupted by the above seizure and collection order.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s status.