1. A notary public of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the appointed party) and the appointed party (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2010, the Defendant: (a) drafted a notarized promissory note No. 661, 2010, in the capacity of an agent of the Plaintiff and the designated parties as the issuer, a notary public, in the capacity of an addressee of a promissory note No. 30,000, written in sight-paid promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”); (b) on March 23, 2010, in the capacity of an agent of the Plaintiff and designated parties.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”). B.

After March 23, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,370,000 to the Defendant by April 9, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not pay taxes when operating an online shopping mall in the name of the Defendant’s wife D.

The defendant paid 7,550,950 won on the unpaid tax, and 3,379,050 won on October 2, 2017 are in arrears.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As to the obligations related to the notarial deed of this case, the plaintiff and the designated parties asserted that the plaintiff delegated the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to the defendant, but the designated parties did not bear the obligation of promissory notes on the notarial deed of this case since they did not delegate the preparation of the notarial deed of this case. In addition, since the plaintiff paid to the defendant the amount exceeding KRW 35,370,000,000 as stated in the notarial deed of this case after the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, the plaintiff and the designated parties requested for the refusal of compulsory execution on the basis of the notarial deed of this case. 2) The defendant's designated parties lawfully delegated the preparation of the notarial deed

At the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff was liable to pay interest of KRW 17,000,000 to the Defendant separate from the loan obligations which are the cause of the Promissory Notes and Promissory Notes, but the amount repaid by the Plaintiff is interest and not paid.