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

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion lent KRW 54.5 million to the defendant from April 2007. Accordingly, the plaintiff made a notarial deed on the debt repayment contract between the defendant and the defendant on October 19, 2007. The defendant is obligated to return the above loan to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the notarial deed asserted by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant was unable to repay the money under the name of the purchase price of the vehicle, etc., the Defendant entered into a quasi-loan for consumption or a novation agreement.

However, the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant in relation to the above notarial deed, and in the criminal case, the defendant immediately paid to the plaintiff 20 million won in lieu of the above notarial deed amount, and in addition, paid in installments 10 million won to the plaintiff. The plaintiff prepared a criminal agreement to the defendant.

Since the defendant paid most of the money to the plaintiff according to the above agreement, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

2. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant prepared a notarial deed (No. 764, 2007, No. 2007, No. 2007, No. 2007, Oct. 19, 2007) stating that "the defendant lent KRW 54,500,000 to the plaintiff on July 1, 2007" between the plaintiff and the defendant.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of each statement and the entire argument in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, i.e., the defendant paid KRW 20 million to the plaintiff on January 21, 2014, which the plaintiff prepared a written withdrawal of complaint, and paid KRW 9.2 million to the plaintiff from March 20, 2015 to August 18, 2017, which correspond to the agreement asserted by the defendant.