A. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant, while working for F Co., Ltd. in the wholesale and retail business of pharmaceutical products, paid KRW 100 million to Plaintiff B who prepared to establish a convalescent hospital at the time, and prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption of money for KRW 100 million to Plaintiff B’s husband A and joint guarantor B as Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On December 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) transferred the loan claim of KRW 100 million against Plaintiff B to the succeeding intervenor; (b) notified Plaintiff B of the transfer of claim; and (c) the Plaintiffs consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the purport of the notarial deed of this case is that the defendant's payment of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff B under the pretext of rebates, and the money paid by the defendant constitutes illegal consideration, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 100 million to Plaintiff B on January 22, 2016 is recognized as the money paid as the form of rebates, taking into account each entry of the evidence Nos. 7 through 12 (including a serial number, if any).

As such, the Defendant’s payment of rebates to Plaintiff B in relation to the supply of drugs is not only an act of restricting the right of choice of drugs by a medical institution founder, etc., obstructing fair and free competition among drug wholesalers, impairing the integrity of transactions, but also an act of causing tax evasion or distort the price of drugs, thereby affecting the decision of the insurance amount by creating a non-financial fund, and ultimately, a consumer.