1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiffs has the executory power of No. 2328, 1994.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, it can be acknowledged that the notary public of December 13, 1994, entrusted by the agent E, such as the creditor, the defendant, the debtor, and the joint guarantor, etc., with the following contents as the commission of the notary public of December 13, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case").

The debtor borrowed 1.3 million won from the creditor on November 22, 1994.

The debtor shall repay 13,000 won each day over 100 times from November 22, 1994 to February 29, 1995.

The guarantor has guaranteed the debtor's obligation and agreed to jointly and severally with the debtor to perform the obligation.

Identification of Related Party A: the debtor - The joint guarantor of the plaintiff A, the debtor - the F, the plaintiff B

2. Examining the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiffs has expired by prescription, the repayment period of the loan claim indicated in the instant notarial deed is up to February 29, 1995, and thus, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff A, the primary debtor, expired by the ten-year prescription period, and accordingly, the Plaintiff B’s guarantee liability was extinguished depending on the nature of the guaranteed obligation.

On the other hand, the defendant paid KRW 975,00 to the defendant on March 28, 2012, on condition that the other joint and several surety is excluded from the guarantor. Thus, the defendant alleged that the debts of the principal obligor or other surety have been extended by prescription. However, the grounds that the guarantor incurred as to the surety do not affect in principle the principal obligor or other surety, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the principal obligation or other surety obligation is not suspended, and thus, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiffs based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' claim is justified.