1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 4, 2007, the Seoul Western District Court case No. 2006Gabu245539 (hereinafter “former District Court case”) filed against the Defendant that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 5, 2005 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

Therefore, although the defendant appealed by the same court 2007Na1207, the dismissal of the appeal was made on November 1, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da86501, but the appeal was dismissed on February 5, 2008, which became final and conclusive on February 13, 2008.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables with the Incheon District Court 2008No1960, an executory exemplification of the final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant as an executory title.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s spouse C filed a suit of demurrer with the Incheon District Court No. 2008Gadan43821, and the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and C in the above case. The Plaintiff conducted compulsory execution under the Incheon District Court No. 2008No9528 with the title of execution and received dividends of the principal amount of KRW 1,00,000 and interest KRW 39,452 on December 11, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to extend the prescription period of the claim established by the instant judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Class A evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 15, and 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 14 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 5, 2005 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that "the judgment of this case is an unfair judgment made based on forged evidence by the plaintiff."

However, the above reasons alleged by the defendant are for the extension of prescription by res judicata of the judgment of this case.