1. No. 246 and No. 247 against the defendant's defendant's certificate of notary public C office against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 246 of 2008, 2008, which read as “the creditor, the debtor, the joint and several surety D, the debt amount of KRW 5 million, the due date for payment of the debt amount of KRW 5 million, August 9, 2008, and the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum.”

(hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed No. 1 of this case”). On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 247 of 2008, 2008, which provides that “the creditor, debtor D, the Plaintiff, the joint and several surety, the debt amount of KRW 5 million, the due date of payment of KRW 5 million, and the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum.”

(hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed 2”). (b)

On April 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) rendered the instant notarial deed as the title of execution with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim; (b) issued each of the instant notarial deeds as the title of execution with the Daegu District Court 2016TTT6248; and (c) received each of the instant notarial deeds as the title of execution under 2016TT6247, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 4, Gap 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim for return of the advance payment and the guarantee claim against the plaintiff on each of the certificates of this case are null and void in violation of good morals and other social order. Even if it is not so, the defendant's claim for return of the advance payment against the plaintiff should not be subject to compulsory execution based on each of the above notarial deeds, since the five-year extinctive prescription has expired with commercial claims.

(2) At the time of the preparation of each of the above notarial deeds, the defendant had been working as a marina for Eju, and the plaintiff lent 5 million won as a prepaid loan to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was working only a day from the next day, and the plaintiff was not allowed to do so, and there was no other fact that he did not force the plaintiff to do so, and the plaintiff did not have to do so.