A. On June 15, 2017, the Defendant lent KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

B. On the same day, D, E, and F issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant note”) dated September 14, 2017 and delivered to the Plaintiff as security for the Plaintiff’s above loan obligations against the Defendant on the same day.

A notary public made on the same day a notarial deed (No. 614, 2017 No. 614, hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that, upon the commission of the plaintiff, D, E, and F, if a notary public delays the payment of the bill of this case to the holder of the bill of this case at the request of the defendant, the notary public would not raise any objection even if he is subject to compulsory execution.

B. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant and repaid the said loan in full.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes in this case is the Defendant’s loan credit against the Plaintiff, and since this is wholly extinguished on September 28, 2017, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed in this case should be denied.

On September 29, 2017, the defendant additionally lent KRW 40 million to the plaintiff on September 29, 2017, and the plaintiff agreed that the bill of this case will be useful as security for the above 40 million loan obligation.

However, even if the parties agree to use the previous execution certificate as a new claim by extinguishing the legal relationship and establishing a claim based on a new legal relationship, it cannot be deemed that the execution certificate is a new claim. Therefore, the above utilization agreement is null and void, and compulsory execution based on the execution certificate is not allowed.

Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 2004 delivered on November 25, 2004.