1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 8 of the 2013 deed prepared by the Defendant on January 8, 2013.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence No. 3.

The plaintiff is the husband of C, who is the former wife of the defendant, and D is the father of D, who is the father of the defendant and C.

B. On January 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a notarial deed at the request of the Defendant that a notary public make D independently after November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant make it possible for D to make D independent by contributing a total of KRW 60 million to each of KRW 30 million. ② The lessee of the lease contract at the home to be located in D shall be in the joint name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. ③ The Defendant may not demand the Plaintiff to pay KRW 30 million to D without having to pay KRW 30 million, or demand D to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff without having to do so independently. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of which no objection is raised even if they did not perform the monetary obligation under this contract. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed in accordance with the above notarial deed with the terms and conditions of a notarial deed pertaining to the debt repayment contract (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1) The plaintiff and the defendant under the notarial deed of this case contributed 30 million won to establish the residence of D, and they are obligated to enter into a lease contract under the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant to allow D to reside in the above leased house, and the defendant does not have the right to seek payment of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. 2) The plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 30 million to the plaintiff as the independent fund of D under the notarial deed of this case, and the above 30 million payment obligation is not fulfilled.