1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2004, C’s bankruptcy trustee D filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Plaintiff under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2004Gada18473, and won a favorable judgment on July 9, 2004. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On February 23, 2005, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the extension of prescription by Seoul Central District Court 2014da659626, and won the judgment on November 28, 2014. The said judgment became final and conclusive on December 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff is nonexistent due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, and compulsory execution of the claim the statute of limitations of which has expired is not permitted as an abuse of rights. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the Defendant’s case, such as the Defendant’s loans, etc., Incheon District Court Branch Court Decision 2004Gaso1

3. Pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, the grounds for an objection to a claim ought to arise after the conclusion of pleadings. The completion of extinctive prescription, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, is merely a ground that occurred before the closing of argument in the lawsuit No. 2004 Ghana 18473 at the Incheon District Court.

Furthermore, even if the claim against the plaintiff was completed by prescription, it cannot be said to be an abuse of right with the reason that the plaintiff's compulsory execution based on the claim was not made due to the lapse of prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

4. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.