1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 21, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, who is the primary debtor B and the joint guarantor, to claim for loans, etc. under this court’s 2009 Ghana2. On July 21, 2009, the court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant (B and the Plaintiff of this case) jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 41,976,189 and the amount of KRW 13,59,641 per annum 29.9% per annum from March 27, 2009 to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment against the plaintiff was finalized on September 2, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “the final judgment of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s credit card loans to B, and the Defendant’s credit card loans claims are five years after the extinctive prescription is expired at the time of the final and conclusive judgment of this case. As such, compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case should be denied.

B. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit claiming a judgment is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should have arisen after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit. Moreover, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstance, and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 Decided May 27, 2005, etc.). The completion of extinctive prescription cited by the Plaintiff as the ground for objection cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion itself is based on the Plaintiff’s own assertion, since it is obvious that it was the ground arising before the closing of argument in the final judgment of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that compulsory execution based on the final judgment of this case should not be denied is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.