A. On September 5, 201, the Defendant, as a credit service provider, lent KRW 10,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2011 as of September 6, 2011, annual interest rate of 48%, and due date of payment on July 5, 2012, deducted KRW 9,100,000 as a prior interest and paid KRW 9,00,000 after deducting KRW 9,00 as a prior interest.

B. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) a notary public belonging to the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office drafted a notarial deed for a loan for consumption of money (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) under the No. 711, from the date of law enforcement to the date of law enforcement, as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) Creditor (Defendant, hereinafter the same shall apply) leased KRW 10,000,000 to the debtor (Plaintiff, hereinafter the same shall apply) on March 21, 2012, and the debtor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) Debtors shall be returned by June 27, 2012.

If the debtor delays the repayment of the principal, the damages for delay shall be paid to the creditor at the rate of 20% per annum to the delayed principal.

(ar) [Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is not permissible, since the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant a total of KRW 11,230,800 from October 21, 201 to October 11, 2012.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that part of the amount the plaintiff asserts repayment is repaid to the non-party C's debt against the non-party D, which is the plaintiff's husband. The defendant asserts that the 7,000,000 won out of the loan of this case and damages for delay remain.

3. Determination

A. According to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1 A of the instant loan repayment No. 3, the Plaintiff’s attached Form

1. It is recognized that the Defendant paid the same amount as the repayment details (hereinafter “the instant amount”) to the Defendant for the repayment of the instant loan. As such, it is special.