1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is in a notarial deed of promise No. 452 dated 2004.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed 4.2 million won from the Defendant as of May 14, 2004 (hereinafter “instant debt”). A notary public, in the event that the Plaintiff did not repay the said money, drafted a notarized deed No. 452 of C law Office No. 2004 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that a notary public, who was immediately subject to compulsory execution, consented to the absence of objection.

B. On December 29, 2014, the Defendant applied for a collection order for the amount claimed under this Court 2014TTT 27728 based on the Notarial Deed of this case as of December 29, 2014, 4.2 million won, and the seized claim as the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against each financial institution, and received a seizure and collection order from the above court on the 31st of the same month.

On January 21, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking a loan of KRW 4.2 million with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da3147). On the other hand, the Plaintiff raised an objection and continues to file a lawsuit with the said court 2015Da139280.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion of repayment is justified, since the plaintiff fully repaid the debt of the loan of this case to the defendant, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case cannot be permitted. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 3 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of discharge, the Plaintiff received a decision of discharge from the above court on January 4, 2010 by making bankruptcy and application for discharge under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Hau34713, 2008, 34713, and the above decision became final and conclusive at that time. The Plaintiff can be acknowledged as having failed to enter the instant obligation in the creditor list at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for discharge. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s property claim arising from the cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt, namely, bankruptcy claim.