1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 650, No. 650, 201, drafted a joint law office.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2011, the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, and to pay KRW 10 million each ten million each time from August 10, 201 to May 10, 2012, respectively.

(B) On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted No. 650 of the No. 650 of the No. 201 of the No. 2011 of the No. 2010 of the No. 201 of the Monetary Loan Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “No. 650 of the No. 201 of the instant No. 300

B. The Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and exemption and was granted immunity on June 12, 2015.

(Resan District Court 2014No. 10034). The list of creditors prepared at the time did not include the loan claims in this case.

C. On August 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) rendered the instant authentic deed as the title of execution by Busan District Court 2018TTT10586; and (b) received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim.

The defendant is a limited partnership company aimed at selling alcoholic beverages, etc.

The Plaintiff received alcoholic beverages from the Defendant at the time of the receipt of the borrowed money of this case and operated a restaurant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant loan was paid to the Plaintiff on May 10, 2012 as a condition subsequent to the Plaintiff’s order to maintain transaction relations of alcoholic beverage supply by May 10, 2012. As long as the Plaintiff maintained transaction relations with the Defendant before and after May 10, 2012, the obligation to return was extinguished as the conditions for cancellation were met. (2) The Plaintiff was granted immunity in bankruptcy proceedings, and thus, the Plaintiff was also exempted from the obligation to return the instant loan.

3 The instant loan claims, as commercial claims, have expired by prescription since the lapse of five years from May 10, 2012, which was the expiration date of the due date.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of extinctive prescription is different.