1. The date of the decision on performance recommendation (No. 2001Gauri102509) against the plaintiff on the identity of the non-party corporation.

1. Basic facts

A. The identity of the Nonparty Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming for the amount of KRW 620,000,000 for credit card use, as the court 201 Ghana 102509, and damages for delay.

On July 9, 2001, this Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter, the instant decision on performance recommendation) to the Plaintiff according to the purport of the above lawsuit, and the decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The claim in the instant decision on the execution recommendation was transferred to the Defendant via a limited liability company for assets management loans.

On April 10, 2018, the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s claim against Gwangju Bank and Guidance Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd. with the enforcement title of the instant decision on performance recommendation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the statute of limitations expired since 10 years have passed since July 9, 2001, which was the date when the above decision became final and conclusive.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above decision cannot be permitted.

B. The Defendant asserts that, on June 30, 2015, the lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff by accepting a seizure and collection order of the claim against the Gwangju District Court 2015TT assets management limited liability company, and the written decision was served on July 10, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not respond thereto such as filing an objection. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the claim under the decision on performance recommendation was impliedly approved.

Although approval of an obligation as a ground for waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription can be granted in an implied manner because there is no restriction on the method of indication, at least by expressing the intent to recognize the existence of an obligation owed by the obligor against the obligee, and the interpretation of whether there exists an expression of intent to that effect is indicated.