1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 27, 2005 to October 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. On July 26, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for compensation for damages as the District Court Decision 2005Ga7184, and the above court rendered a decision to recommend reconciliation (hereinafter “the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case”) on July 26, 2005 that “the Defendant would pay KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff.” The decision to recommend reconciliation in this case became final and conclusive August 26, 2005, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the prescription of the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case is either dispute between the parties or can be acknowledged by the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 80 million and the damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from August 27, 2005 to October 3, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from August 27, 2005 to October 3, 2015, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) was not known as to whether the Defendant was unable to receive a copy of the complaint of the above-mentioned District Court case No. 2005Kadan7184, and thus, did not know whether the instant decision of recommending reconciliation was made.

Therefore, the decision to recommend reconciliation of this case has no effect on the defendant.

(B) Even if the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case was effective against the Defendant, the Defendant was declared bankrupt as the District Court Decision 2006Hadan7791, and the decision of immunity was granted as the Supreme Court Decision 2006Ma8134, and thus, the obligation following the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case was exempted from the above decision of immunity.

(2) (A) In full view of the evidence as seen earlier as to the validity of the ruling of recommending reconciliation of this case, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the fact-finding with respect to the head of the medical prison, the defendant at the time when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his own district court 2005Kadan7184.