1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is Multilatera Law Firm, 2017, No. 434, April 28, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed for consumer loan (Evidence A2, hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant, paid KRW 1.8 million as of the end of each month from September 2017 to March 2018, and paid KRW 2.4 million as of the end of April 2018.”

B. However, at the end of the notarial deed of this case, the entire amount of receipts (amount: KRW 60 million) and entertainment room acceptances was received. On May 4, 2017, the notarial deed of this case stated that “A creditor, Defendant C, and Plaintiff” (hereinafter “the receipt of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff argued by the parties that, while accepting a game room in the amount of KRW 60 million from the defendant, C prepared a notarial deed in his own name as to KRW 15 million out of the above acceptance price to be paid by C to the defendant as a relation in which C acquired the game room in its name, but C paid the above acceptance price in full, it argues that compulsory execution based on the notarial deed in this case should be denied since C paid the above acceptance price.

In this regard, the Defendant did not have prepared the entry of the receipt of this case, and it did not receive KRW 40 million from C, and the Plaintiff still has the obligation to perform the obligation of KRW 15 million on the Notarial Deed, since it merely received KRW 40 million from C.

B. The facts that KRW 15 million on the instant Notarial Deed constitute part of the purchase price of the game room received by C by the Defendant are not disputed between the parties.

However, although the defendant, which is recognized as authentic, has argued that the seal affixed to the entries of the receipt of this case on the name of the defendant is not his own, the defendant's fingerprint appraisal result is different from that of the defendant.