A notary public of the defendant against the plaintiff is a notarial deed of monetary loan contract No. 290 of 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around December 2018, D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) changed to “stock company E”, around December 2018, specified the lease deposit amount of KRW 400 million, monthly rent of KRW 22 million, and the term of lease from December 3, 2018 to December 2, 2021, to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) (hereinafter referred to as “F”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

F, on June 2019, on the ground of the business depression, the F renounced the operation of the instant Madcop, and delivered D the instant Madcop with the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement.

C. On July 8, 2019, D returned KRW 200 million among the KRW 400 million of the instant lease deposit to F. On July 16, 2019, D borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant, who is the spouse and in-house director of F representative I, “D borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant on June 30, 2019, and repaid this up to July 31, 2019. The Plaintiff, a D inside director, as a joint and several liability for the Defendant, was a notary public who prepared and executed a notarial deed under the Monetary Loan Agreement (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

D The remaining lease deposit amount was refunded to F on August 28, 2019 and September 19, 2019, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was prepared for the payment of KRW 200 million for the remainder of the lease deposit to be returned by D to F, and as D fully returned the lease deposit to F, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not only the lease deposit that D must return to F, but also the settlement of accounts of sales of Macop in the instant case.