A. The defendant is a company whose purpose is the wholesale business and the sales business of soft drinks.

B. From November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff operated “F” in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D and 1st E, and “H” in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu G and 1st underground level from April 10, 2017.

C. On October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement on KRW 60,000,000 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) by a notary public to the Defendant as a law firm No. 1287, 2017. The main contents are as follows.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) Beginning August 10, 2017 to March 10, 2019, 3,000,000 won shall be paid in installments each month from August 10, 201 to March 10, 2019.

Article 3 (Interest) No interest shall accrue.

Article 5 (Compensation for Delay) If the debtor delays the repayment of principal or interest, he/she shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum for the delayed principal or interest.

When an obligor falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall, as a matter of course, lose the benefit of time for the obligations of the borrowed amount and immediately repay all of the remainder of the debt, even if no other notification or peremptory notice is given by the obligee:

3. When the debtor has delayed the payment of the principal once or more times;

D. On June 29, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant, respectively, and KRW 20,000,000 on August 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was liable to the Defendant while operating the “F” and “H”, and that the Plaintiff had prepared the instant notarial deed.

Since then, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant around 2018, thereby repaying all obligations under the instant authentic deed.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

B. The main point of the Defendant’s argument is that I, who is the Plaintiff, shall be governed by the JJ (hereinafter “J”).