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

After that, the defendant requested C to return the remaining KRW 18 million on the ground that the purchase price stated in the real estate sales contract is KRW 80 million.

Accordingly, in lieu of the payment of KRW 10 million, C completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the land located in Sung-gun, which is the mother of C, in lieu of the payment of KRW 10 million, and on October 17, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public, on October 17, 2008, prepared a notarial deed of money loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the Defendant shall lend KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2008, by the due date for payment of KRW 8 million” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

Since then, the defendant received 4 million won from the plaintiff around 2009, and the plaintiff agreed to pay 8 million won in full as loans on the notarial deed of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s debt on the Notarial Deed was fully repaid.

Since the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

2. On the ground that around 2009, the Plaintiff filed an agreement on the settlement with the Defendant, and accordingly, submitted the evidence No. 4 (Receipt). The Defendant asserted that the above receipt cannot be used as evidence, as a copy of which no original was available. As such, we examine whether the evidence No. 4 can be used as evidence.

A. The submission of relevant legal principles must be the original, and the submission of evidence by a simple copy, not just as the original, is unlawful in principle as it does not guarantee accuracy. Thus, there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and the copy is the original.