1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 38 of 2006, 2006, signed by the two law firms on March 9, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

B. On March 9, 2006, the Defendant transferred KRW 300 million to the account of C. On March 9, 2006, the Plaintiff, C, and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating that “The Defendant, on March 9, 2006, lent KRW 300 million to C on July 10, 2006, interest rate of KRW 300,000 per annum, interest rate of KRW 300,000 per annum, and delay damages rate of KRW 25%, and the Plaintiff, as a joint and several surety, guaranteed the obligation of C, and recognized compulsory execution at the time of default (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that D, the Defendant’s husband, actively participated in the Defendant’s implementation of the apartment project, etc., C is not a “loan” but a “investment”, and C does not have the obligation to repay the “loan” to the Plaintiff.

Even if the defendant's loan claims were completed and terminated by the five-year commercial extinctive prescription, and the plaintiff's joint and several liability obligations were extinguished according to the principle of non-existence.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion 1) The defendant lent KRW 300 million to C at the time of the preparation of the authentic deed of this case, and the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of C, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above loan and damages for delay. 2) The money transferred by the defendant to the account of C is lent to the plaintiff's individual. Since C merely provides the name, it does not constitute an ancillary commercial activity, the statute of limitations for commercial claims does not apply to the defendant's loan

Even if the Commercial Extinctive Prescription is applied, since the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to approve the debt to D, the husband of the Defendant, around the end of 2012 and around the beginning of 2013, the statute of limitations was interrupted.

3. Judgment by issue

A. The defendant.