1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim against the Chuncheon District Court Decision No. 2005Gadan2277, and the said judgment became final and conclusive upon receiving a favorable judgment. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the prescription period of the said judgment.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 evidence Nos. 1 and 1 evidence, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and B of the Chuncheon District Court on Sep. 7, 2005 by filing a loan claim claim under 2005da2277 with the defendant and B, and on Sep. 7, 2005, "the defendant and B jointly and severally paid to the plaintiff 27,000,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 6.5% per annum from July 19, 2002 to September 18, 2002, and 18% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment," and it is recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive on Oct. 5, 2005, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on Aug. 8, 2016, which was 10 years after the above judgment became final and conclusive.

As to this, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant to urge the repayment of loans on September 25, 2015, the statute of limitations has been extended for six months, and eventually, the statute of limitations has not expired. However, Article 174 of the Civil Act provides that the interruption of prescription has no effect unless the peremptory notice is filed within six months, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff filed a judicial claim within six months after the peremptory notice was given on September 25, 2015. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the above judgment was extinguished by the statute of limitations.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.