A. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff, a corporation, engaging in real estate sales agency business, implementation business, etc., drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement under paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) stating that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants KRW 450 million in installments three times from December 15, 2016 to March 15, 2017.

B. The Defendants filed an order of seizure and collection against the Plaintiff, Han Bank, etc. based on the instant notarial deed with Suwon District Court 2016TT22930, and issued the order on January 10, 2017.

C. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants as the principal deposit amounting to KRW 450 million as Suwon District Court No. 4607, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 4, 6 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the judgment, and the fact that the plaintiff deposited the plaintiff's obligation based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendants of this case. As seen earlier, the plaintiff's obligation was extinguished by the above repayment deposit.

Since compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case by the Defendants is no longer permissible.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.