A. Since September 25, 200, Plaintiff A completed business registration with the trade name “D”, Plaintiff A operated the frequency from September 25, 2000 to June 30, 2008 from 601,602 to 602 of the Busan Suwon-gu E building.

B. When the business funds were needed, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant on February 12, 2008 at the maturity of payment on March 12, 2008 and at the interest rate of 48% per annum, and Plaintiff B entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement for the said debt.

C. On April 4, 2008, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption as a notary public No. 523, Changwon Law Firm 2008, whose content is a monetary loan contract as above.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”). D.

Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction for corporeal movables under the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch No. 2008No1218, and on April 29, 2008, received KRW 1,107,650 from the above auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied, since the plaintiff borrowed business funds necessary for operating the frequency of the notarial deed of this case as commercial claims. Thus, since the notarial deed of this case was extinguished after the lapse of five years from the due date of payment under the Commercial Act.

The Defendant is a general civil claim. Even if it falls under a commercial claim, the statute of limitations was interrupted by sending a content-certified mail demanding payment on September 23, 2013, and the Plaintiffs were unable to exercise the Defendant’s claim due to malicious alteration or disguised transfer of address. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the completion of the statute of limitations is contrary to the good faith principle.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim 1 above, the plaintiff A is a merchant, and the plaintiff A, a merchant, raises a business fund from the defendant.