A. On September 29, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim under the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2009Da35231, and was sentenced to the judgment of the said court that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 90,00,000 and the interest calculated at the rate of KRW 25% per annum from March 1, 2008 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B. On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received an agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) stating that “The Defendant would not apply for preservative measures, such as filing a civil lawsuit or provisional disposition, against the Plaintiff and his/her children, on the basis of the claim related to the instant judgment against the Plaintiff,” from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, it shall be deemed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on March 12, 2015 that the Plaintiff would not file an application for compulsory execution based on the claim related to the judgment of the instant case and entered into an executory agreement. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the instant case cannot be permitted.

3. The defendant did not have an agreement of execution of the above non-execution.

Since it is a defense that the agreement is null and void as an unfair juristic act or is based on the defendant's mistake, the defendant is a visually disabled person, in particular, under the circumstances such as ① a certificate of seal impression issued by the defendant himself/herself in the agreement of this case is attached to the certificate of this case, ② the agreement of this case appears to have been made in the attorney office, ② the defendant's failure to understand the contents of the agreement of this case, ③ the plaintiff is a visually disabled person.