1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm Jung-dong, No. 00102, Nov. 29, 2006.

1. Basic facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, a person running an entertainment tavern with the trade name of “C”, who borrowed KRW 40 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”); and (b) the notary public drafted a notarial deed with the loan principal of KRW 40 million on November 29, 2006 as the loan principal of KRW 00102,00,000,000 due date, March 9, 2007; and (c) the delay rate of KRW 22% per annum (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) pursuant to the purport of the entire pleadings and the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The act of a merchant is presumed to be an act of a merchant for business, and the act of a merchant for business purposes is deemed to be a commercial activity. According to the above facts established, the Plaintiff constitutes a merchant and thus, the act of borrowing the instant loan is deemed to be a commercial activity, and therefore, the obligation of borrowing the instant loan applies five years after the lapse

Therefore, since the debt of the loan of this case 5 years from March 9, 2007, which was due date, has expired, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment alleged that the defendant had suspended the extinctive prescription by giving a peremptory notice. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant claimed performance to the plaintiff on January 5, 2012. However, the peremptory notice of the claimant for performance does not have the effect of interrupting prescription if the defendant did not make a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance for compromise, seizure or provisional disposition within six months, and there is no proof that the defendant made a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance for compromise, seizure or provisional disposition within six months after the request for performance, and there is no evidence that the defendant made a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.