1. The defendant's decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2008 Ghana220396 dated October 9, 2008.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant lent to the Plaintiff a total of six million won on August 2, 1997, two million won on November 1, 1997, one million won on October 10 of the same year, and six million won on March 6, 1999 (the repayment period August 30, 1999).

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On September 26, 2008, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan of this case with the court 2008 Ghana220396, and on October 9, 2008, the defendant received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter "decision on performance recommendation of this case") stating that "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint is served to the day of complete payment," and the above decision was served on the plaintiff on October 17, 2008 and confirmed on November 1, 2008.

[Based on recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that all of the instant loans were repaid, and even if so, the Plaintiff did not repay.

Even if the loan claim of this case has expired due to the completion of the statute of limitations, the compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loan was fully repaid does not have any evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, the three loan claims made in 197 among the loan claims in this case are claims with no fixed time, that is, when a right comes to arise, that is, a claim that can be exercised from the date of lease. As seen earlier, the lawsuit seeking the payment of each of the above loan claims was filed on September 26, 2008 after the lapse of 10 years from the respective lending date. As such, the credit held in this case as of August 2, 1997, the 11th of the same month, and November 10 of the same year was expired and expired before the lawsuit was filed.

However, when the loan claim in March 6, 199 can be exercised, the above loan is due and due.