1. The defendant's letter of decision in lieu of conciliation of Daegu District Court Branch 2007ss money374 against the plaintiff is based on the defendant's letter of decision.

According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire arguments, a decision was rendered in lieu of conciliation that the plaintiff and the defendant jointly and severally paid KRW 34,100,000 to the defendant by August 9, 2007 (hereinafter “the instant decision”). The instant decision became final and conclusive on September 1, 2007, and the defendant issued the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of the 2017TTTT102145 on September 20, 2017, by asserting that the plaintiff and the defendant claimed that there was a claim of KRW 102,841,863 against D with respect to the above claim, and that the plaintiff received the attachment and order in whole.

However, since the defendant's above claim against the plaintiff in the decision of this case has expired ten years after the due date, and the above claim has expired by prescription, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the decision of this case against the plaintiff should be rejected.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the above C, which is jointly and severally liable in the decision of this case, approved the above claim, was suspended by the statute of limitations, or that C renounced the benefit of prescription. However, even if the above C approved the above claim or renounced the prescription benefit, it cannot be said that the defendant obstructed the progress of the statute of limitations of the above claim against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant'

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.