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

A. A. Around December 2017, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a “money borrowed contract” (hereinafter “instant contract”) to the Defendant. The instant contract is an obligation arising from the principal that was not returned out of the principal invested by the Defendant, an investor, in the investment of high profit gift gift certificates. Around December 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to deduct KRW 100,000,000, out of 310,000,000, which was not refunded, under mutual agreement and to refund KRW 210,000,000, which shall not be paid. The method of payment shall be 30 times in total from January 2, 2018 to May 2020, stating that the Plaintiff shall not be liable for the repayment of the additional amount to be paid in accordance with the circumstances.”

B. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the instant notarial deed to the Defendant for KRW 210,000,000, as stated in the instant contract.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Defendant invested money in D, the Defendant prepared the instant contract and the notarial deed of this case between the Plaintiff and D, and thus, the notarial deed of this case constitutes null and void as the declaration of intention under Article 107 of the Civil Act.

(hereinafter “the first argument”). B.

Even if the notarial deed of this case does not constitute null and void, since the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the defendant coercions the plaintiff to file a complaint as a crime of fraud, it constitutes an expression of intent that can be revoked pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act, and the plaintiff expressed his/her intention of revocation by delivering a duplicate

(hereinafter referred to as “the second assertion”). (c)

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

3. Determination

A. Determination on the first argument 1.