1. A notary public against the plaintiff of the defendant prepared on September 7, 2001 by the chief of the law firm, No. 3469.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2001, the plaintiff, the non-party C, and the defendant entrusted a notary public to the law firm head, and had a notary public prepare a notarial deed of money loan contract No. 3469 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") containing the following contents:

"C shall borrow 4.5 million won from the defendant on July 16, 2001 at the maturity of 4.5 million won on July 17, 2001 and at the rate of 25% per annum, and the plaintiff shall jointly and severally guarantee the above principal and interest obligation of C. C. When the plaintiff fails to perform the above monetary obligation to the defendant, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if it is immediately enforced."

B. On June 201, the Defendant applied for a compulsory execution of corporeal movables to the Ulsan District Court with the title of execution (the above court 201No. 1630). On June 24, 2011, the above court execution officer commenced compulsory execution on the seizure of corporeal movables located D 102 Dong 301, Ulsan Northern District Court No. 41, Jun. 24, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as the seizure of this case). [Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the cause of claim

A. (1) The principal assertion of the parties concerned (1) A claim based on the notarial deed of this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion shall lapse to the five-year extinctive prescription period as a commercial bond.

At present, since five years have elapsed from the maturity date of the claim under the Notarial Deed of this case, the above claim was extinguished.

The execution against the plaintiff based on the defendant's notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

(2) The Defendant’s claim based on the Notarial Deed does not constitute a commercial claim, and thus, the extinctive prescription period for commercial claims does not apply.

B. (1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the fact that there is no dispute, the entries of Gap 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the fact that the defendant's occupation is a commercial entry in the notarial deed of this case, and Eul introduced the defendant who conducts the bond business in the process of finding out the loan and borrowed money from the defendant, and this led to borrowing money.