1. An executory payment order issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff at Busan District Court 2012 tea978.

1. Facts recognized;

A. In supplying feed to C, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed with the following contents in order to secure the claim for the payment of feed, and at the time, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation based on the said notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial obligation”).

No. 208 of notarial deed No. 2001: No. 14 of notarial on April 14, 2001: The notarial deed No. 2001 by a notary public: The defendant, the debtor C, and the plaintiff who is a joint guarantor: 80,00 won of feed payment obligation to be paid by the debtor to the creditor; 36% of the interest rate per annum.

On May 30, 2012, the Defendant filed a claim against C and the Plaintiff for a payment order of KRW 30,000 won and damages for delay in the remainder of the notarized debt of this case (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Busan District Court Decision 2012Hu9778, and C filed an objection, but the said payment order against the Plaintiff was finalized on July 24, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection.

C. On May 27, 2013, the Busan District Court Decision 2012Da74331, which was proceeded with by C’s filing of objection, concluded conciliation on May 27, 2013 that “the Plaintiff (Defendant B) waives its claim against the Defendant (C). The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against each party.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In the instant conciliation, since the principal obligation became extinct upon the Defendant’s waiver of the claim against C as the principal obligor, the guaranteed obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished according to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation. 2) The instant notarial obligation became extinct upon the expiration of extinctive prescription.

B. It is even if Defendant 1 did not have received the debt of this case from Defendant 1, and waived the claim against C in the instant conciliation.