1. The original copy of the notarial deed with executory power of No. 2787, 2002 by the defendant's notary public against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 2002, the defendant lent 4 million won to B on Oct. 12, 2002 by setting the due date for repayment as October 12, 2002, and the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation.

B. The Defendant was prepared with a notarial deed as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the above loan claim (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory execution against the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff with the Busan District Court 2015No. 820 with the title of execution of the Notarial Deed as the title of execution, and completed the seizure execution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the plaintiff's claim for the loan of this case by the defendant, the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Determination as to the loan claim of this case by the defendant, the extinctive prescription from December 10, 2002 shall run from December 10, 2002.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed on April 10, 2015 after the lapse of 10 years from that date, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription has expired. Accordingly, the instant loan claim was extinguished.

The defendant asserts that since the defendant claimed the plaintiff to pay the loan of this case from 2007 to 2011, the extinctive prescription is suspended and the period of extinctive prescription is newly run from that time.

According to the evidence No. 1, although the defendant sent a document, it is found that it is merely a "peremptory" as provided in Article 174 of the Civil Act, and the interruption of extinctive prescription resulting therefrom is null and void unless the procedure of judicial request, etc. is taken within six months from that date.

In the instant case, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had taken the procedure of judicial claim, etc. within six months after sending the above documents, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of interruption of prescription cannot be accepted.

Therefore, this case.