1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2008, the Defendant (Seoul District Court 2008Kadan4749, Daegu District Court 2008, 92,517,655 won loan claims against A as preserved bonds, and received a seizure and collection order against A as to the price of goods and construction expense claims against the Plaintiff.

B. On October 8, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for collection, and the Plaintiff was jointly and severally with the Defendant, as the court of this Court Decision 2008Da7251 on October 8, 2008, to pay the Defendant 93,785,020 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day when the decision to recommend a settlement became final to the day of full payment (hereinafter “the decision to recommend a settlement in this case”). The above decision was final and conclusive on the 28th of the same month because the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise any objection.

C. On April 22, 2009, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order regarding the Plaintiff’s five financial institutions based on the original copy of the Incheon District Court’s 2009TTT 6550 decision of recommending reconciliation of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, although the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff, which is the subject matter of the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, was the first KRW 29,50,000,000, among which the claim against the plaintiff was paid in 20,500,000, and the period of extinctive prescription in commercial matters had expired on March 31, 2008, and the defendant issued a seizure and collection order on the plaintiff's claim based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, even though he knows that there was no claim against the plaintiff in this case, it constitutes an abuse of right against the principle of trust and good faith, compulsory execution based on the defendant's decision of recommending reconciliation in this case should be denied.

In this case, it can be seen that the defendant was aware of the existence of the claim against the plaintiff at the time of compulsory execution based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case.