The Jeonju District Court of February 9, 2017 enforced enforcement against the defendant against the plaintiff on the basis of the judgment 1505 of the 2017 Ghana.

Enforcement Title

A. On January 23, 1998, the Defendant set KRW 5,000,00 to the Plaintiff as the due date on February 16, 1998 (hereinafter “instant loan”). (B) On March 9, 2006, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order seeking the payment of the instant loan under the Jeonju District Court Order 2006 tea 1888.

Although the above court issued a payment order, the payment order was not served on the plaintiff due to the addressee's uncertainty and the addressee's absence, and upon the defendant's application, the above case was implemented as a lawsuit by the Jeonju District Court 2006Ga Office 76985.

On October 14, 2006, the above court rendered a judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay the loan and delayed damages of this case to the defendant on October 14, 2006, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2006.

(c)

On September 23, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the instant loan at the Jeonju District Court 2016 tea 3695 for the extension of the statute of limitations on the instant loan claim.

Although the above court issued a payment order, the payment order was not served on the plaintiff due to the absence of the director's uncertainty or closure, and upon the defendant's application for the lawsuit, the above case was executed by the Jeonju District Court 2017Ga Office 1505.

On February 9, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 5,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from July 23, 2006 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the title of execution of this case").

The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s loan claim of this case as to the existence of grounds for objection as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, has a ten-year statute of limitations.