A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted, on May 15, 2017, a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 123, 2017, No. 2017, No. 2017, No. 2017, No. 3840, May 15, 2017, on which the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 38,40,00 from the Defendant as interest rate of 25% (payment from June 2017 to every 27th day) and due date of repayment as of December 31, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of non-existence of loan debt amounting to KRW 38,40,000 based on the instant notarial deed, which is KRW 2017da17047, May 16, 2019, the court ruled to the effect that “The Plaintiff’s debt against the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed shall not exceed the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from April 5, 2019 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 43,143,216, and KRW 38,400,000 per annum.

The Plaintiff appealed as the same court 2019Na207623, but the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 12, 2020. The Plaintiff appealed but the appeal was dismissed on July 9, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff did not explain what is the cause obligation of the notarial deed of this case and does not present evidence. The cause obligation of the notarial deed of this case that the plaintiff bears to the defendant is the acquisition price of the right of lease in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff fully pays KRW 100 million to the defendant, which is the acquisition price of the notarial deed of this case. Thus, since the cause of the notarial deed of this case is unclear or it does not exist as the plaintiff's repayment, the notarial deed of this case does

(Other causes of action were all withdrawn by the Plaintiff). 3. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the judgment of the Plaintiff, however, D’s obligations based on the Notarial Deed of this case are located in Sungnam-gu E in Seongbuk-gu.