1. Promissory notes, No. 633, 2013, dated November 29, 2013, filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff by a notary public against the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff issued a promissory note to pay KRW 30 million to the Defendant on November 29, 2013, which the Plaintiff had to pay by November 29, 2015, and a notary public prepared a notarial deed under No. 633, Nov. 29, 2013 on the claim of a law firm on November 29, 2013, does not conflict between the parties.

2. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the provision of insurance business and service fees to be paid KRW 30 million as an insurance subsidy; and (b) entered into the instant promissory note No. 1190, Nov. 29, 2013 on the ground of the agreement.

After that, on June 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exempt the obligation and destroy the notarial deed if the payment is made by deducting the amount of KRW 100,000 per month from the wages for the ten-month period in relation to the amount of KRW 30,000,000 based on the notarial deed of promissory notes.

Accordingly, the plaintiff paid 10 million won to the defendant over a ten-month period.

Therefore, even though the plaintiff's obligation under the agreement has been extinguished, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff, so the defendant is not entitled to compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed

3. Determination

A. According to Gap evidence No. 3 (Agreement) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff and the defendant, on July 3, 2014, decided to blank all the matters of the existing agreement and the amount with respect to insurance subsidies of KRW 30 million that the plaintiff already received from the defendant and the certificate of promissory notes of this case securing such subsidies. However, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to terminate the debt at the time of repayment of KRW 10 million and also abolish the authentic deed by making repayment from June 3, 2014 to KRW 1 million each month.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant from June 2014 to April 2015 is not a dispute between the parties.

If so, the Plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to repay to the Defendant under the Convention on July 3, 2014, barring special circumstances.