The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the loan amounting to KRW 20,000,000 as the loan amounting to KRW 20,000 and the interest and delay damages on the loan amounting to KRW 20,000 with the Daegu District Court’s Sung

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan claim”). B.

On December 22, 2005, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the plaintiff shall pay KRW 12,000,000 to the defendant, on condition that the plaintiff shall pay KRW 12,000,000 to the defendant from January 2006 to December 2006, each month shall be paid in 12-month installments.”

On January 13, 2006, the above decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and thus, the executory power of the ruling recommending reconciliation should be excluded.

3. Article 168 of the Civil Act stipulating provisional seizure as a cause of interrupting prescription is because the creditor can be deemed to have exercised his/her right by provisional seizure. While the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective, the exercise of the right by the creditor of provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue. Therefore, the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure shall continue while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective.

In addition, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides that provisional attachment and judicial claim as separate causes of interruption of prescription, even if a favorable judgment on the merits of the preserved claim against provisional attachment becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription by provisional attachment cannot be said to have expired due to the absorption thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da11102 Decided April 25, 200, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18622, November 14, 2013, and 18639 Decided November 14, 2013, etc.) comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 3 through 5 and the overall purport of the arguments, the Defendant’s loan claims in this case under the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2005Kadan482 as the preserved claim and owned by the Plaintiff.