1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff in the 21st century was the deed of July 23, 2004, drawn up by the general law office in the 2004.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 23, 2004, the Defendant borrowed KRW 470,000,000 from the Defendant on May 4, 2004, as “C and the Plaintiff’s agent and the obligee themselves,” setting the due date for repayment of KRW 3% from the Defendant on July 24, 2004, and interest monthly. The Plaintiff is jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation by the Plaintiff, and if C and the Plaintiff, etc. fail to perform the above obligation, a notarial deed stating that they have no objection thereto was immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).

B. On August 4, 2017, the Defendant, based on the instant authentic deed, was issued a ruling on the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against each of the above financial institutions by designating the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff and the third obligor, Han Bank, etc. as the Seoul District Court 2017TTT 11798, and the original copy of the instant order was served on the Plaintiff on August 10, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment as to the cause of claim. As seen earlier, the period of repayment of the Defendant’s loan to C based on the Notarial Deed of this case is July 24, 2004. Since the above loan claims are general civil claims and the period of extinctive prescription is ten years, the loan obligations of C, which is the principal obligation on the Notarial Deed of this case, expired after the lapse of ten years from July 24, 2004, and the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability obligations were extinguished according to its subsidiary nature.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant against the plaintiff should be rejected.

B. On August 10, 2017, the Defendant did not raise an objection against the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff would have renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription since the Plaintiff approved its joint and several liability. However, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff may waive the benefit of extinctive prescription.