1. The defendant's claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff of Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Da10524 decided Apr. 15, 2008.

1. The fact that the Defendant, who guaranteed a contract for the installment sale of enforcement claim between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the completion of extinctive prescription, filed a claim against the Plaintiff for reimbursement amounting to KRW 12,800,620 from the Gwangju District Court No. 2008 Ghana10524, and that the decision of performance recommendation was finalized on May 3, 2008 by the same court is no dispute between the parties.

In addition, it is clear that May 3, 2018 passed from the time when the defendant appears to have been able to exercise his claim against the plaintiff as much as possible.

According to the above facts, extinctive prescription was completed for the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement cited in the above decision of performance recommendation.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation should be rejected.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion lies in the need to terminate the exercise of the claim by the Defendant on its own by taking into account the Plaintiff’s insolvency, but the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant exists as a natural obligation condition. Therefore, the enforcement force of the above decision on performance recommendation should continue.

B. On the other hand, it is not permissible to enforce a compulsory execution against a claim, the extinctive prescription period of which has expired, inasmuch as it goes against the purpose of the system to promptly determine the legal relationship of the person who was potential on the right and protect the other party, inasmuch as it is against the purpose of the system to protect the other party, the compulsory execution against the claim, the extinctive prescription period of which has expired, may not be permitted.

The Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate and acceptable.