A. Around August 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant to borrow KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant and pay KRW 1,000 each month from September 2014 to April 2016 (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

B. In order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow a loan to the Defendant based on the instant monetary loan agreement, a notary joint office signed by a notary public B’s joint office on September 3, 2014, No. 00655, Sept. 3, 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. After that, until April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff fully repaid the Defendant the obligation to repay the borrowed amount under the instant monetary loan agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow money against the Defendant under the monetary loan contract of this case was extinguished on or around April 29, 2016. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case prepared to secure the above loan obligation should be denied.

3. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant's claim is groundless since the amount equivalent to 15,894,569 won of the secured debt of the notarial deed of this case remains. However, as seen earlier, the whole secured debt of the notarial deed of this case was extinguished, and the entries of the notarial deed Nos. 1 through 4 alone are insufficient to recognize that the amount equivalent to 15,894,569 won of the secured debt of the notarial deed of this case, unlike the above recognition, remains. Since there is no counter-proof, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and acceptable.