1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 130 million and its KRW 50 million, the Defendant shall be from December 31, 2006 to KRW 80 million.

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for loans with Busan District Court 2008Gahap3977, Jan. 22, 2009, "the defendant may demand the plaintiff to participate in the auction procedure for the amount of KRW 130 million and KRW 50 million from Dec. 31, 2006 to May 27, 2007 to Jan. 22, 2009, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment to the day of full payment, and the plaintiff may demand the plaintiff to participate in the auction procedure for the above real estate and pay the amount of KRW 130 million to the plaintiff at the rate of 5% per annum from May 27, 2007 to January 22, 209 to the day of full payment."

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, as set out in the above judgment, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 27, 2007 to January 22, 2009, and 20% per annum from January 23, 2009 to the date of full payment.

B. As to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription 1), the defendant defense to the effect that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed more than 10 years after the above judgment became final and conclusive, and thus the period of extinctive prescription expires. 2) The creditor holding an executory exemplification may apply for a compulsory auction based on this, and the act of filing an application for a demand for distribution by using the auction procedure commenced by another creditor upon the application is also the same as the application for a compulsory auction in the name of the debt. Thus, the demand for distribution by the creditor holding an executory exemplification in the real estate auction procedure is identical to the application for a compulsory auction.