1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

A. On November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff would accept KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant on January 31, 2007 due date” but it appears that “the notarial deed of this case on January 31, 2007” would be “the notarial deed of this case.” The Plaintiff borrowed 5% per annum and 60% per annum, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform the above obligation, it would accept without delay any objection despite compulsory execution.”

B. On April 24, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of corporeal movables with the title of execution of the instant notarial deed with the Gwangju District Court 2014No311. On April 24, 2014, the execution officer of the said court attached ten corporeal movables, including D, 404, 306, the air conditioners (PRUD) located in the Plaintiff’s residence, and conducted a provisional auction.

C. C. The corporeal movables seized in the above auction procedure was sold to F, the Plaintiff’s spouse at KRW 2,100,000, and the Defendant received dividends of KRW 788,240 [the proceeds of sale ± (2,100,000 ± 261,760)] from the actual proceeds of sale after deducting the expenses of execution, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and judgment as to an objection to the purport of the entire pleadings

A. The plaintiff asserts that the debt under the notarial deed of this case was made by lending the plaintiff's name only formally without the intention to bear actual debts, and thus becomes null and void as it constitutes a false representation of conspiracy, or since the five-year extinctive prescription has expired with commercial bonds, the executory power of the notarial deed of this case should be excluded.

In this regard, the defendant cannot be deemed as null and void by means of a false declaration of agreement, and at least there was an intent to guarantee the plaintiff, and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff is ten years extinctive prescription.