1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. Cases in which this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2015 Chicago250.

Facts of recognition

On September 27, 2007, while the plaintiff and the defendant completed the marriage report on July 5, 2000 and maintained the marriage relationship with one child (C) under the chain, they prepared a diversative statement on September 27, 2007, stating that "the plaintiff and the defendant are designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian for the plaintiff and the children under defendant sl, but the plaintiff shall pay the defendant child support of KRW 2,00,000 per month until his/her child becomes adult, and completed the divorce report on October 8, 2007.

On December 31, 2008, in order to clarify the Plaintiff’s child support liability between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Plaintiff drafted a notarized deed of monetary loan contract No. 1483 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) in 208, stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 225,60,000 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,700,000 each month from January 31, 2009 to December 2012, and KRW 2,00,000 each month from January 2013 to December 25, 2018.”

The Plaintiff paid only KRW 500,000 out of the child support to the Defendant on January 25, 2015, while paying the child support to the part of December 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s benefit claim against the Korea Broadcasting System as the title of execution by designating the instant authentic deed as the title of execution, and received the order of seizure and collection from the said court on February 4, 2015.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with D on December 2, 2014, and is living a married life, and around March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal for reduction of child support with Seoul Family Court 2015-Ma30236 and continues trial.

【No dispute over the ground for recognition】 The Plaintiff’s assertion based on the following facts: Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 12, 13, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 (including a branch number) and the overall purport of the pleadings; the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the overall purport of the pleadings. The details of division of property, the Plaintiff’s economic situation, and the increase in the cost of living due to re-re-employment, etc.