1. The defendant's KRW 5,594,400,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 14, 2008 to February 28, 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap126715, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, C Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd., on January 23, 2009, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,594,40,000, and each of the Defendant shall be jointly and severally with the Defendant, and C Co., Ltd shall be KRW 4,754,400,000 among them, KRW 840,000 among them, and each of them shall be paid KRW 5% per annum from November 14, 2008 to February 28, 2009, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation”).

B. On January 30, 2009, the decision to recommend reconciliation of this case was delivered to E, respectively, who is an office member of the plaintiff and the defendant, and was finalized on February 14, 2009 without any objection of the parties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the records management department of the Seoul Central District Court and the fact-finding results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation of this case has the same effect as a judicial compromise pursuant to Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act and has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, in this case where the plaintiff raised for the extension of extinctive prescription, the court shall not make any judgment inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5,594,400,000 won with 5% interest per annum from November 14, 2008 to February 28, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to this, the defendant did not receive the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, and E is a person who has no relationship with the defendant, the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case is null and void, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is a commercial claim and has already expired due to the completion of extinctive prescription.

Doese, Doese and Doese.