A. The Plaintiff has been supplied with alcoholic beverages by the Defendant while operating the mutual main points of “C” in Ulsan Southern-gu B.

B. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 12.5 million from the Defendant, and drafted a notarial deed, as described in paragraph (1) of this Article, to secure the said obligation.

C. By December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant KRW 12.5 million on the said notarial deed.

[Ground of certification] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the above obligations under the notarial deed shall be deemed to have been fully repaid.

B. The Defendant asserts that, on November 2014, the instant claim seeking the exclusion of enforcement based on the said notarial deed is groundless, since the Defendant extended additional KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff and maintained the validity of the said notarial deed as it is.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2-2 of subparagraph 1-2, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 10 million to the account in the name of the plaintiff's partner to the account in the name of the plaintiff's partner, and KRW 5 million on November 28, 2014. However, the above amount of KRW 15 million to the plaintiff's loan from the defendant, and there is no evidence as to whether the above amount has been agreed upon between the defendant and the plaintiff in order to secure the above amount. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

C. Therefore, since the defendant's above debt on the notarial deed was fully repaid to the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed cannot be permitted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and acceptable.