A. On October 8, 2015, C drafted a notarial deed between the Defendant and a notary public, stating that “A notary public bears the obligation of KRW 1.6 billion against C with respect to an active outdoor payment, and recognition of a compulsory execution against the said obligation” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On July 1, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court (2016TTT) issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to KRW 800 million among the claims on the instant notarial deed against C against the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s notary public against C, as the title of the execution of the claim of KRW 800 million with the executory power of No. 489, July 1, 2015, as Seoul Central District Court 2016TT, and the instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on July 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 210 million won, among the amount of 80 million won received the collection order of this case, to the plaintiff who is the collection authority of the claim under the Notarial Deed, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 15, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of non-existence of enforcement claim 1) Examining the details of money transaction between September 15, 2007 between the Plaintiff and C from September 15, 2007 to December 30, 2015, the amount that C remitted to C is more than the amount that C remitted to C by the Plaintiff.Therefore, there is no claim against C on the Plaintiff’s No. notarial deed, an enforcement title. 2) The Defendant’s assertion of this part of the judgment is purport that the execution claim of the instant collection order does not exist, but the non-existence