1. The Defendant’s notary public’s joint law office against the Plaintiff No. 308 of the 2007 deed prepared on February 26, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the following content: “The Plaintiff, on February 26, 2007, entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant by setting the interest rate of KRW 35 million per annum from the Defendant until February 26, 2007, and due date for repayment until February 26, 2009, and if the Plaintiff did not repay the above loan, it shall be recognized and accepted compulsory execution against the Defendant if the Plaintiff did not repay the loan.”

B. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2012Ha7150, 2012Ha7150.

The above court declared the Plaintiff bankrupt on November 20, 2012, and decided to grant immunity on April 8, 2013, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on April 24, 2013.

In the list of creditors, the defendant's claims based on the Notarial Deed of this case were also stated.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's obligation under the notarial deed of this case against the defendant was exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall be dismissed.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant on the Notarial Deed of this case is due on February 26, 2009, and the fact that the ten-year period has elapsed since it is apparent from the present, the above obligation was extinguished by the statute of limitations.

C. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case must be rejected.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.