1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the defendant engaged in the water purifier sales business may recognize the fact that the defendant, on July 16, 2001, lent 4,500,000 won to C, who is the plaintiff's wife, on September 14, 2001, and the interest rate and delay damages rate at 25% per annum, respectively, and the plaintiff, on the joint and several guarantee of the above loan, and at the request of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant and C, on September 7, 2001, the notary public prepared a notarial deed (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case") stating that "when delay in performing the above borrowed debt, the plaintiff and C shall be allowed that there is no objection even if they were forced to enforce the compulsory execution."

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the period of extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s claim based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act, and it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 25, 201, which was 5 years after September 14, 2001, when the time limit for payment of the instant lawsuit was due, and thus, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant notarial deed expired.

Therefore, in the absence of special circumstances, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Defendant asserts that his claim, based on the claim stated in the notarial deed of this case, enforced compulsory execution on the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff and appropriated the successful bid price for a partial repayment of the obligation indicated in the notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff, even though being aware of the progress of compulsory execution procedure, did not raise any objection, renounced the benefit

B. If an obligor partly pays an obligation after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the obligor shall be deemed to have impliedly approved the entire obligation, unless there is any dispute over the amount. In this case, the obligor shall be deemed to have known of the completion of prescription.