The decision of performance recommendation is based on the decision of the Incheon District Court 2010da264601 case for the price of goods between the plaintiff and the defendant B.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the claim against defendant B, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant B seeking payment of goods under the Incheon District Court 2010Gaso264601, and the above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation on October 26, 2010 to accept all the plaintiff's claim on October 26, 2010, and it is recognized that the above decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on November 19, 2010. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case seeking confirmation that there exists a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription based on the above decision of performance recommendation is reasonable, and the benefit of confirmation is also recognized.

Defendant B received bankruptcy and immunity on July 14, 2017, and did not enter claims based on the decision on performance recommendation in the list of creditors. As such, Defendant B’s assertion that the above obligations against the Plaintiff should be deemed as discharge pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. However, the subject matter of a new form of litigation seeking confirmation is limited to the legal relationship through a judicial claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to specific claims for which judgment has become final and conclusive without exclusion of the substantive existence and scope of the claim, and there is no need to examine the existence of the claim including the completion of extinctive prescription in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). The above assertion by Defendant B is without merit without need to further examine.

3. If so, the plaintiff's each claim against the defendants against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.