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

A. On July 3, 2012, the Defendant prepared and delivered the instant notarial deed stating that “D would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 520 million for the purchase price of goods” from a limited liability company D (hereinafter “D”).

B. On October 11, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with D for grant of succession execution on the ground that D was merged with the Plaintiff, and on January 3, 2014, C in charge of authentication-at-law in charge of authentication-law in charge of authentication granted D a succession execution clause to the Defendant for compulsory execution against D’s successor to the Plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Even if the Plaintiff merged with D, the Plaintiff is not a general successor of D.

② In the lawsuit for nullification of merger by split and merger filed by the Plaintiff’s representative E against the Plaintiff and D, the said court rendered a judgment on April 23, 2013 that “the merger between the Plaintiff and D as of October 11, 2012 is null and void,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff is not in the position of successor to the obligations under the instant notarial deed against the Defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is not permissible.

B. First of all, as to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff completed the registration of merger with D on October 11, 2012, and Articles 603 and 235 of the Commercial Act apply mutatis mutandis. Article 234 of the same Act provides that “A surviving company after the merger shall take effect upon the registration of the merger at the place of its principal office,” and Article 235 of the same Act provides that “a surviving company after the merger shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the extinguished company due to the merger.” Thus, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have succeeded to the obligations under D’s Notarial Deed at the same time upon the completion of the registration of the merger.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Then, the plaintiff's argument.