1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 10,086,073 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2.(a)

Of the instant counterclaim.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 13, 1997, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Suwon District Court 97Da79241, which sought the payment of loans 24,216,170 won, and damages for delay thereof, and won in full.

B. On December 17, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Suwon District Court 2008Kadan122516, which sought reimbursement of claims, such as loans based on the above judgment. In the above case, conciliation was concluded with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 24 million, and the Plaintiff shall waive the remainder of claims.”

(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). C.

On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 13,913,927 in the compulsory auction procedure for D real estate at Suwon District Court DD with regard to the size of 402 square meters in Sungsung-si owned by the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant dividends”). D.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 19, 2019 for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims under the instant conciliation protocol, and the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim on April 26, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,086,073 (=24,000,000 under the instant conciliation protocol - the amount of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff according to the instant conciliation protocol - the amount of the Plaintiff’s dividends 13,913,927).

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was an old age of 70 years and was an old age other than the law, that the Plaintiff did not receive an attorney’s assistance at the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, and that there was a difference between the time when the Plaintiff received dividends in the auction procedure on real estate owned by the Defendant and the date of closing the argument of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, shall file the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription