1. The defendant's decision of performance recommendation against the plaintiff on June 4, 2008 by Seoul Eastern District Court 2008Gauri119731.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the fact that the Japanese Savings Bank (the Japanese Mutual Savings Bank prior to September 2010) received a decision of performance recommendation (the Seoul Eastern District Court 2008 Ghana 119731, Jun. 4, 2008) by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on May 28, 2008 against the Plaintiff by filing a decision of performance recommendation (the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2008 Ghana 19731, Oct. 13, 2014). The above decision of performance recommendation becomes final and conclusive at that time, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that it received the succession of execution clause as to the decision of performance recommendation as to October 13,

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation should not be allowed, since the loan claims of the Japanese Savings Bank were already extinguished by the statute of limitations.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the decision of performance recommendation was made final and conclusive because the plaintiff approved his/her own debt, and eventually, the plaintiff renounced his/her benefit of extinctive prescription.

B. The extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim is complete if it is not exercised within five years (main sentence of Article 64 of the Commercial Act). The facts that the due date for payment of the instant loan claim was November 8, 2002 are no dispute between the parties, and the facts that the Japanese Savings Bank filed a lawsuit on May 28, 2008, which was five years after the date on which it was set by the Japanese Savings Bank from the company, are as seen earlier. Therefore, the instant loan claim already expired by the statute of limitations.

On the other hand, an obligor who is entitled to the benefit of prescription may waive the benefit of prescription after the completion of the extinctive prescription, and this is an expression of intent to have an effect of not receiving any legal benefit due to the completion of the prescription.

In addition, the determination of whether there is an expression of intent to waive the prescription benefit, the purpose and genuine intention of the parties to the act indicated, the contents, motive and circumstances of the expression of intent, and the declaration of intent.