1. The defendant's protocol of mediation of the claim case, such as the defendant's family branch of Busan District Court 2002ddan8526 divorce against the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

1) The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for divorce, etc. against the plaintiff in Busan District Court's Family Branch 2002ddan8526, and around May 27, 2003, the plaintiff and the defendant are divorced from the plaintiff and the defendant. <2> The plaintiff shall pay 40 million won as consolation money to the defendant up to June 30, 2003, and where the plaintiff neglects the above payment date, he shall pay interest in arrears calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the above payment date to the date of full payment, and ③ adjust that the plaintiff shall be designated as the person exercising parental authority and the guardian for the principal of the case (hereinafter "instant mediation").

(2) On July 23, 2018, the Defendant received a claim seizure and collection order from the Busan District Court 2018TTY 8605 pursuant to the instant conciliation protocol against the Plaintiff, and served the Plaintiff and the third obligor around that time.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant's claim for consolation money against the plaintiff under the conciliation protocol of this case is terminated after the lapse of ten years, and in the conciliation of this case, the plaintiff agreed to pay consolation money to the defendant by June 30, 2003 is as seen earlier. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's claim for consolation money against the plaintiff was terminated by the completion of prescription on July 1, 2013 after the lapse of ten years from July 1, 2013, which is the day following the due date.

C. Therefore, compulsory execution under the instant protocol cannot be permitted.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant continuously requested the Plaintiff to pay consolation money after the instant conciliation, and thus, the claim for consolation money has not been extinguished by prescription. However, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay consolation money.

It is recognized that there is a cause to interrupt extinctive prescription.