1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is based on the notarial deed No. 942 dated 2010, No. C. 942.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2010, while the Plaintiff opened and operated a restaurant under the trade name “E”, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant, who was the representative director of the F Company, on December 6, 2010, under the condition that the Defendant was supplied with alcoholic beverages from the limited liability company F (former name: Limited Liability Company G) whose representative director is the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “the instant loan”). (b)

On December 17, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 942, No. 301, 201, a notary public with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 30,000,000 each month from January 5, 201 through October 5, 2011, in installments, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform the above obligation, he/she shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1-6 evidence (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s loan debt of this case is a commercial debt and its extinctive prescription has expired.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

B. The Defendant’s loan debt of this case is a civil debt, and the extinctive prescription has not yet expired.

3. Claims arising from not only a claim arising from an act of commercial activity, but also a claim arising from an act of commercial activity that constitutes only one of the parties, constitute commercial claims to which the extinctive prescription period of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also the auxiliary commercial activity that merchants carry on for business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da54842 delivered on April 29, 1994). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as a merchant operating a restaurant, received the instant loan from the Defendant in relation to his business.