1. Certificate No. 2566, Sept. 17, 2002 drawn up by a notary public against the defendant of the plaintiff on September 17, 2002.

1. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including the number of branch numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the defendant lent KRW 3.9 million to Eul, the former wife of the plaintiff on Sep. 17, 2002, and prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 2566 of 2002, which was "the defendant, who is the creditor, the debtor, and joint and several sureties" on the same day (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"). The defendant filed an application for the auction of movable property with the Ulsan District Court 203No727 on the basis of the notarial deed of this case, but the defendant did not receive repayment (Seizure of July 29, 2003) and revoked the application for the auction of movable property on Aug. 4, 2003, the defendant may file an application for the seizure and collection order of this case under the U. Ulsan District Court 2016Ta0595, Oct. 26, 2016.

In full view of the above facts-finding, a claim based on the Notarial Deed of this case was interrupted upon the Defendant’s application for seizure as of July 29, 2003, and the interruption of prescription became extinct due to the Defendant’s withdrawal of the application for a movable auction as of August 4, 2003. Ultimately, the interruption of prescription expired on September 16, 2012 after ten years from the time when the claim was created.

Accordingly, in light of the fact that the defendant received a seizure and collection order based on the notarial deed of this case, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation on the existence of the claim under the notarial deed of this case.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the burden of litigation costs is to be borne by each party by applying Articles 98 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Act in light of the developments leading up to the establishment and extinguishment of the claim of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition.