1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 1997, Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. loaned 18% interest rate of KRW 10 million to B, with the due date set up until September 5, 1998. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of this case.

B. The claim for the instant loan was transferred to a business-backed limited company on January 22, 2002, to the global exchange-backed limited company on August 1, 2003, to the global exchange-backed limited company on June 8, 2007, and each transferee notified B of the transfer of the claim by content-certified mail.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as this Court No. 2014Gada42832, and the said court rendered the Defendant a decision to recommend performance with respect to KRW 38,813,688 and the amount of KRW 10,52,50 per annum from April 4, 2014 to the date of full payment. The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 3-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the loan of this case is due on September 5, 1998. Since a limited liability company specializing in global foreign exchange system has filed a judicial claim against the Plaintiff on January 27, 2004 and the five-year extinctive prescription period from the above due date, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan of this case had already been extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case made by the global exchange-backed securitization specialized company after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period against the plaintiff should not be allowed.

3. Determination

A. We examine the loan of this case as commercial bond, and it is recognized that five years have elapsed since September 5, 1998, the due date for payment of the loan of this case, but it is also acknowledged that the loan of this case was due and that five years have passed since September 5, 1998. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2, a limited company specializing in global investment securitization has been five years before the due date for payment of the loan of this case.