1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm C 209 No. 924.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the father of Nonparty D.

The Plaintiff completed the business registration of the trade name “F” around July 2009, while operating the dental house in Ansan-si E, Ansan-si, and around that time, the Defendant engaged in the wholesale and retail business of the raw chickens and the scopic with the trade name “G”.

B. On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff, D, and the Defendant set up a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) as “the creditor, principal debtor, Plaintiff, joint guarantor, D, loan amounting to KRW 30,00,000 on November 15, 2010, interest rateing to KRW 750,000 on January 15, 201, and the maximum amount of the guarantor’s guarantee liability amounting to KRW 39,00,000 on November 16, 2009.” The notary public, stating the purport of recognition of compulsory execution, drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, 5-1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the primary claims, the Plaintiff asserts that “The Defendant did not pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff as stated in the instant notarial deed, and thus, the instant notarial deed has no effect.”

In full view of the above basic facts, Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant may be recognized as having remitted KRW 30,000 to D's account at the plaintiff's request on November 16, 2009, the date of the execution of the notarial deed of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant lent KRW 30,000 to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim on the ground of the expiration of extinctive prescription among the primary claims

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on November 16, 2009 (hereinafter “the loan claim of this case”).

It argues that the five-year statute of limitations is applied to commercial claims, and that the five-year statute of limitations has expired since November 15, 2010 when the due date is due.

For this reason,