The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, on March 24, 2010, the lower court: (a) requested the Plaintiff to consent to the repayment of the instant retirement allowance from March 24, 2010 to March 2014; and (b) consented thereto; (c) the Defendant’s request for postponement of payment period constitutes a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription, and thus, (d) rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription on the ground that the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim was interrupted until March 20

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is limited to the defendant's above request for postponement of payment period was made within the rehabilitation procedure against the defendant, and therefore there is no validity of approval since the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on April 8, 2010. However, since the agreement for postponement of payment period was also a premise for approval of the debt, approval of the debt is effective since the agreement for postponement of payment period was also implemented within the rehabilitation procedure, and even if the extinctive prescription of the retirement allowance claim which was suspended from the time of abolition of the rehabilitation procedure is re-existent, according to the records, the defendant submitted the legal brief as of May 9, 2012 stating the purport of approval of the retirement allowance obligation such as "Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga95477 (Seoul District Court Decision 201Da95477)" to the court, and it can be known that the legal brief was delivered to the plaintiff around that time, the plaintiff's assertion that the extinctive prescription period for the retirement allowance claim in this case was suspended due to the submission of the above legal brief is justified in conclusion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.