1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2002, the Busan District Court Decision 2002Gaso275658 (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) filed against the Plaintiff, issued a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Non-Party Company KRW 2,373,000 and the amount equivalent to 6% per annum from February 1, 2001 to the delivery date of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.”

6. 27. Finality was established.

B. On June 22, 2015, the Defendant, as a successor to the non-party company, received an execution clause by succession as to the decision on the instant performance recommendation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the extinctive prescription has been completed on June 27, 2012 after the lapse of ten years from the date on which the instant decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive, compulsory execution based thereon should be dismissed.

The facts that more than 10 years have elapsed since the date when the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive are apparent. However, according to the evidence No. 1 of this case, the non-party company applied for the seizure and collection order as the Busan District Court 2010TT2071 with respect to the Plaintiff’s national bank, etc. on the basis of the decision on performance recommendation of this case and applied for the seizure and collection order as of July 23, 2010, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above decision was cancelled on September 17, 2010, and there is no other evidence to support that the above decision was cancelled, the extinctive prescription of the instant decision on performance recommendation of this case was interrupted around 2010, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion of extinctive

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, if the non-party company partly pays the debt based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case, the remainder of the debt was also exempted. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the debt was completely arranged in the past.