1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is on the No. 811 No. 805 No. 81. 2005 No. 811.

1. The fact that a notary public prepared a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 811 in 2005 between the plaintiff and the defendant (the defendant set 6,00,000 won to the plaintiff on Aug. 6, 2004 on Feb. 17, 2005 and interest rate of 66%; hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") between the plaintiff and the defendant does not conflict between the parties.

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the claim asserts that since the Defendant lent the Defendant’s debt under the Notarial Deed to the Plaintiff for multiple businesses, the extinctive prescription was applied to the Plaintiff and the extinctive prescription was expired on February 16, 2010. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of No. 3 alone is a commercial bond, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, even if a commercial claim is not a domestic commercial claim, the extinctive prescription has expired on February 16, 2015, ten years after the due date, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for refusal of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed. As such, the instant claim on the notarial deed is a civil claim, and the extinctive prescription has expired on February 17, 2015, which was ten years after the due date. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on November 9, 2015, the extinctive prescription has expired, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be rejected.

On January 6, 2005, the defendant paid KRW 400,000 to C in the name of C, and the defendant approved the debt on Nov. 17, 2005 by paying KRW 200,000 on Nov. 17, 2005, and each of the two millions on May 15, 2006, the extinctive prescription period has been suspended, and it is argued to the purport that the period of extinctive prescription has not run again. Thus, the defendant was not over the period of extinctive prescription, even if it is recognized that the defendant remitted KRW 40,00 won to Nonparty C on Jan. 6, 2005, it cannot be concluded that the payment was made without being found to have been made, and even if the payment was made without being found to have been made, the period of extinctive prescription has expired thereafter, and the remainder has expired.