1. The original copy of the lease deposit case against the Defendant by Seoul Eastern District Court 98Gadan28382 against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 1998, the Defendant brought an action against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the lease deposit under Seoul Eastern District Court 98Gadan28382, and a compromise was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 5, 1998, including that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 27,00,000,000 in total by three installments until October 31, 1998.”

(hereinafter “instant protocol of conciliation”). (b)

On the other hand, the defendant applied for provisional seizure against the plaintiff on March 6, 1998 by the Incheon District Court 98Kadan10343, and the above provisional seizure was cancelled on February 3, 2001 through the auction procedure.

C. After that, on November 27, 2017, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation under the Daejeon District Court’s official order 2017 other debt 1158, based on the instant protocol of conciliation. On November 29, 2017, the said court issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). The instant order of seizure and collection was sent to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the garnishee, and the Plaintiff on January 2, 2018, respectively.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s claim based on the instant protocol of conciliation cannot be allowed execution based on the instant protocol of conciliation, since the period of ten years from February 3, 2001, which was ten years from the cancellation of the above provisional seizure, expired on February 3, 201 (the instant seizure and collection order requested by the Defendant, was filed after the lapse of ten years from the expiration of the statute of limitations, and thus cannot obtain the validity of interruption of the statute of limitations).

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff approved the obligation based on the instant protocol of conciliation around August 22, 2017, which was after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

(2) receive scambling and extinctive prescription benefits.