1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff has the executory power of 201 No. 1425 of the joint law office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 13, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased all alcoholic beverages necessary for the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s “C” from the Defendant for three years, and the Defendant prepared a “Agreement on Transactions” with the content that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff with its operating capital. Around that time, the Defendant lent KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On May 24, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant and a notary public on the same content as the instant loan-related part of the “Agreement” under the No. 1425, No. 1425, a joint law office 2011.

① On May 13, 2011, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from the Defendant, and repaid in installments 1.5 million each month from June 13, 201 to 25 times, and the last 26 installments.

(2) When the plaintiff delays repayment, he/she shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum on the principal or interest so delayed.

(3) If the Plaintiff delays the payment of the said installment even once, it shall lose the benefit of time without any notification or peremptory notice by the obligee and shall immediately repay the remainder in full.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not repay part of the instant loan to the Defendant from June 13, 2011 to August 13, 2012. As such, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the time limit on September 13, 2012 and the maturity date for the remainder of the loan arrives.

Inasmuch as the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has expired after the lapse of the five-year commercial prescription period, the said claimant asserts that compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed should be denied.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the statute of limitations of loans of this case was interrupted in accordance with Article 168 (2) of the Civil Code.

B. The evidence and evidence mentioned above 1.