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

A. A. Around June 2011, the Plaintiff borrowed 100 million won from the Defendant as security three of the five ton nives train belonging to the Incheon Branch Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Natural Branch Logistics”).

B. From September 201, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant over several months.

C. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the notary public drafted, at the law firm in the law firm in the white comprehensive law office, a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement concluded on December 31, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) with the obligee, the Plaintiff, the obligor, the borrower, the borrowed amount of KRW 300 million, the due date for payment, and the money loan agreement concluded on December 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was either remitted money exceeding KRW 300 million to the Defendant or upon the Defendant’s request to fully repay the debt under the instant notarial deed.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant loaned money to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and run the business of leasing set-out (hereinafter “instant lease business”).

(2) The money that the Plaintiff paid to C is irrelevant to the obligation under the instant notarial deed. The money that the Plaintiff paid to C is irrelevant to the obligation under the instant notarial deed.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the money paid to the Defendant or C prior to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, the money paid to the Defendant or C prior to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case was for the purpose of repaying the obligation under the notarial deed of this case.

However, in addition to the testimony of the witness C, the authentication of this case set the principal of the borrowed money as KRW 300 million in order to settle the existing claims and obligations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.