1. The defendant's notary public's deed as of October 29, 2004, which was signed by the law firm Nam-nam General Law Office.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On October 29, 2004, the Plaintiffs: (a) a notary public made a notarial deed as stipulated in Paragraph (1) of this Article stating that the Defendant was liable for payment of KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant on October 19, 2004; and (b) the Plaintiff B borrowed KRW 20,000 from the Defendant on October 19, 2004 at 24% per annum; (c) a corporation D, E, and Plaintiff A made and issued a notarial deed as stipulated in Paragraph (1) of this Article that jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant received dividends of KRW 7,704,042 on August 26, 2015 in the voluntary auction procedure for the land and building in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City owned by Plaintiff B, and appropriated KRW 4,089,863 in the interest up to the dividend date, and the remainder of KRW 3,614,179 in the principal amount. The Defendant filed an application for the auction of corporeal movables with the Jeonju District Court 2005No508, Nov. 24, 2005 against D, a joint guarantor, for the auction of corporeal movables, and appropriated for the interest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 4, 13 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiffs based on the instant notarial deed expired after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period from October 19, 2005 to 10 years under Article 162(1) of the Civil Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In light of the Defendant’s frequent change of address, the transfer of real estate owned by the Plaintiffs, and the nominal owner of a restaurant operated by the Plaintiffs, etc., the Plaintiffs made it impossible or considerably difficult to take measures to suspend the exercise of the Defendant’s claim or the progress of the statute of limitations, and the Plaintiffs’ refusal to perform the obligation is remarkably unfair and unfair, and thus, the assertion of the expiration of the statute of limitations cannot be allowed as abuse of rights

In addition, even if the extinctive prescription has expired, even if the Defendant collected KRW 21,309 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Gwangju Bank based on the instant Notarial Deed on December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff B did not raise an objection.