1. It is based on the original copy of the notarial deed drawn up by No. 1739 against the Defendant’s Clegal Office against the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as of June 15, 2001, as of June 15, 2001, the Clegal Office Certificate No. 1739 was borrowed from the Defendant on March 21, 2001 by D as the obligee, obligor D, and joint and several sureties, and D was a debt borrowed from the Defendant on March 21, 2001. From March 21, 2001 to June 27, 2001, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed stating that 20,000 won will be repaid to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). On March 8, 2016, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to a seizure and collection order under the Busan District Court Order No. 20165,51643, against the Plaintiff on March 8, 201.

However, since the last maturity of the loan claim indicated in the Notarial Deed of this case is June 27, 2001, the Defendant’s claim against D, the primary debtor, expired from this point to the 10-year statute of limitations, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation was extinguished depending on the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that D, the principal debtor, repaid on January 31, 2008, KRW 1100,000,000, and thus, the plaintiff's obligation, the joint and several surety, has been extended by prescription, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and the defendant'

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed of this case shall be suspended until this judgment becomes final and conclusive.