A. On January 25, 2005, upon the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2004, and the Plaintiff borrowed it, and the Plaintiff fully repay the principal or interest by the end of December 2005. In the event that the Plaintiff delays the repayment of principal or interest, the delayed principal or interest shall be paid to the Defendants at a rate of 20% per annum on the delayed principal or interest. If the Plaintiff fails to perform his monetary obligation under this contract, a notary public drafted a notarized deed of monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On January 25, 2005, F guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant notarial deed against the Defendants.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the extinctive prescription of the claim on the Notarial Deed was completed on the end of December 2, 2015 after ten years from the last day of December 2005, which was a civil bond.

Unless there are special circumstances, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The Defendants asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was interrupted on the instant notarial deed, since the Defendants filed a lawsuit against F, a joint and several surety, seeking payment of the guaranteed debt by the Jeonju District Court Decision 2006Da17388, and obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendants, and accordingly collected money against F. However, the interruption of extinctive prescription becomes effective between the parties involved in the interruption of extinctive prescription and their successors. As such, insofar as the interruption of extinctive prescription takes effect between the parties involved in the interruption of extinctive prescription and their successors, the primary obligation cannot be deemed to have been interrupted even on the ground that the extinctive prescription against the joint and several surety exists (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da21477, Jan.