A. On March 26, 2004, between the debtor C, the plaintiff who is a joint and several surety, and D, a notary public prepared a notarial deed under a money loan contract (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case") with No. 490 in the New Law Office 2004, and the main contents are as follows:

(2) On March 9, 2004, the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff based on the notarial deed of this case (hereinafter “the Defendant’s loan claims”). Article 1(Purpose) obligee (the Defendant) lent the amount of KRW 30 million to the obligor on March 9, 2004 and the obligor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) The term of repayment of the borrowed money shall be set on September 30, 2004 and shall be repaid in lump sum or in several times by that deadline.

Article 3 (Interest) Interest shall be 15.6% per annum and shall be paid on the 15th day of each month.

B. On February 7, 2017, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, was issued a decision on the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the said financial institution by using the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TTTT 50408 as six financial institutions, including the Plaintiff, the third obligor, the National Bank of Korea, etc., and around that time, the original copy of the decision on the seizure and collection order of the instant claim was served on the Plaintiff and the said six financial institutions, respectively.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant claims constitutes commercial claims by lending business funds, and that the statute of limitations expired on March 30, 2012 after five years from March 29, 2007, which was the date of final repayment.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan constitutes a general civil claim, and the Defendant applied for a collection order on January 13, 2017, which was before the lapse of ten years from March 29, 2007, which was before the date of partial obligor’s approval of debt. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the extinctive prescription is unjust.