1. Certificates No. 1205, 2007, dated May 25, 2007, signed by a notary public against the plaintiffs by the defendant's joint law office against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 16, 2007, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 3.1 million from the Defendant at the maturity of June 1, 2007 and at the rate of 66% per annum, and Plaintiff B guaranteed Plaintiff A’s debt.

B. The defendant entrusted the creditor himself/herself and the plaintiffs' representative with the preparation of the Notarial Deed as stated in the Disposition 1.

C. On September 21, 2015, the Defendant collected KRW 1,767,544 from the third obligor upon receipt of the Busan District Court’s order for seizure and collection of the claim No. 2015T 2270 against Defendant B, a joint and several surety, and filed an application for cancellation of attachment on November 24, 2015.

On September 13, 2017, the defendant again filed a request for the seizure and collection order against the defendant B by Suwon District Court 2017TTT 16553.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was extinguished on June 1, 2007, when five years have elapsed since the due date for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, the primary debtor, who is the principal debtor, as a person who works to lend money to female employees of entertainment taverns, around June 1, 2012, and the Plaintiff B’s obligation, the guarantor, also extinguished as a matter of course according to the influent nature.

In addition, on November 2015, Plaintiff B, the guarantor, paid the Defendant a debt by paying the money in addition to the collection money.

B. The defendant's claim against the plaintiffs is subject to the ten-year statute of limitations with civil claims.

In addition, the defendant only received the seizure and collection order with only some of the money from the plaintiff B.

Plaintiff

B approved the debt by directly discharging the debt after the seizure and collection order.

3. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 5-1 to 6 of the judgment, the defendant's occupation is the defendant's occupation on the notarial deed commissioned by the defendant as the principal and the plaintiffs' representative.