1. The defendant's notary C office against the plaintiff is based on a notarial deed No. 1800 prepared on October 18, 2007, dated October 18, 2007.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant prepared a notarial deed in the order that the defendant set up and lent KRW 65 million to the plaintiff on May 18, 2007 as of August 17, 2007.

The Plaintiff asserts that on August 13, 2007, when the repayment period for the above loan was due, 50,000 won was remitted to the Defendant on the ground of repayment for the above loan (Article 5-1, 5-2) and thereafter, the statute of limitations for the above loan has expired around August 2017, since it did not have been repaid thereafter (Article 5-1, 5-2).

As to this, the defendant, around December 2009, received KRW 100,000 from the plaintiff for the repayment of the above loan, and at that time, the extinctive prescription of the above loan was interrupted by the approval of the debt.

In addition, there is no evidence that the Defendant received reimbursement from the Plaintiff on or around December 2009, and it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations has expired since August 17, 2007, when the statute of limitations expired from August 17, 2007.

Therefore, since an obligation based on the above notarial deed has ceased to exist, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted.

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.