A. The Plaintiff and C borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendant, who is a liquor seller, in the process of opening the main store “D” around May 2008, and, on October 21, 2008, borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendant as a liquor seller, the date of issuance, August 8, 2008, the date of payment, August 8, 2008, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment, and the place of payment, when delay in the payment of a promissory note against the Defendant, a notary public who recognizes and acknowledges that there is no objection even if he is immediately subject to compulsory execution, prepared a notarial deed No. 236 of the 2008 No. 236 of the 2008. (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 11.9 million to the Defendant by May 31, 2013 in accordance with the instant notarial deed.

C. On August 2, 2013, the Plaintiff and E prepared and delivered respectively a loan certificate with a face value of KRW 35 million on the date of payment, March 30, 2014, a promissory note with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and a loan certificate with a maturity of KRW 35 million on the date of repayment, and a loan certificate with a maturity of March 30, 2014 (the Plaintiff is the borrower, and E is the joint and several surety) to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, from June 1, 2013 to April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35.77 million to the Defendant. Of the above amounts, KRW 16.2 million to the Plaintiff’s main liquor payment, the remainder of KRW 19.57 million to the Plaintiff’s repayment of the obligation under the instant notarial deed. As such, the instant notarial deed remains at KRW 3.53 million ( KRW 35 million - 1.9 million - 1.957 million), enforcement based on the instant notarial deed should be denied on the grounds that the instant amount exceeded the above amount.

As to this, the Defendant operated “E” and “F” after the Plaintiff’s closure of main points D, and received the Promissory Notes in this case by additionally lending KRW 35 million to the Defendant, and KRW 2,870,000,000,000 paid to the Defendant is the note F.