1. The defendant's arguments against the plaintiff are based on the Daejeon District Court Decision 2006 Ghana1656 delivered on December 19, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 19, 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the goods under this Court No. 2006 Ghana1656, and on November 19, 2006, the court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 27, 2006 to the date of full payment, with the amount of KRW 918,240 and KRW 480,000, whichever is less.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 31, 2007.

B. According to the above judgment, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim under the Suwon District Court Decision 2012TTT135, but withdrawn the application on April 8, 2013. The Defendant issued a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim under the Supreme Court 2015TTT847, but withdrawn the application on May 18, 2015.

C. On August 9, 2017, the Defendant applied for the issuance of a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim under the former District Court’s Military Accounting Branch 2017TTT 102382, and received the decision of acceptance on August 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Inasmuch as it is apparent that the instant lawsuit filed ten years after the date when the judgment became final and conclusive in this Court Decision 2006Gau16656, the extinctive prescription of the claim for the foregoing judgment was completed.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the above judgment is not allowed.

3. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion that although the previous defendant attached the plaintiff's deposit claim twice, since the plaintiff's deposit claim was promised to repay and the seizure was withdrawn, the above judgment claim was suspended due to the plaintiff's approval.

However, the defendant's legal representative is present on the first day for pleading and stated that "A plaintiff's attorney shall pay money by telephone," and there is no assertion or proof, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion.

Therefore, the defendant.