1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On January 6, 2004, the plaintiff prepared the notarial deed No. 323 of 2004, which was signed by a notary public between the defendant and the defendant. According to the above notarial deed, the non-party B agreed to pay 8.2 million won to the defendant as 46,650 won each day from May 1, 2003 to November 16 of the same year, and the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above B's debt. However, since the above notarial deed's joint and several liability debt was expired more than 10 years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant based on the above notarial deed cannot be permitted.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 4 and 6 evidence Nos. 1, B, the principal debtor, from May 6, 2003 to August 18, 2005, part of the principal and interest of the above loan was repaid from May 6, 2003 to August 18, 2005, and the repayment of the above loan from May 3, 2011 to September 21, 2015, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and the fact that B, Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Da5187, 2010, repaid the above loan to the defendant through the individual rehabilitation procedure, the extinctive prescription period is suspended. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above joint and several surety obligation of the plaintiff was in the process of individual rehabilitation, and the plaintiff's assertion that the above provision is not applicable to the rehabilitation claim or the rehabilitation security right of the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion to the effect that this provision is not applicable.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.