1. The Defendant’s notary public C office against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 12639, Sept. 25, 2013, No. 12639, Sept. 25, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D is a mother of the Plaintiff’s father or mother on the family register.

B. On September 25, 2013, D and the Defendant: (a) at a notary public C office on September 25, 2013, the Defendant is a creditor; (b) D are an obligor and joint guarantor’s agent; (c) the Defendant loaned KRW 20,000,000 to D on September 25, 2013 at an annual interest rate of 30%; and (d) on October 25, 2013, the due date of payment was determined and lent to D; and (c) drafted an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) for the purport that the Plaintiff guaranteed the said obligation.

C. On June 23, 2015, the Defendant started the compulsory auction procedure for the Plaintiff’s movable property as the Daejeon District Court 2015No. 2635 with the title of debt.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D subscribed to the “E” system and was engaged in monetary transactions with E while borrowing money from the e.g., the 15,000,000 won from E to prepare a notarial deed. As to the date of the preparation of the notarial deed, as it borrowed additional KRW 4,50,000,000, the amount borrowed was KRW 20,000,000, and the Defendant designated by E as a creditor, the notarial deed of this case was prepared by designating the Defendant as a creditor.

Accordingly, D received KRW 4,500,000 from the deposit account in the Defendant’s name on September 25, 2013, and received KRW 15,00,000 from the deposit account in the F’s name on September 26, 2013.

Since D later, by remitting KRW 4,50,000 on September 26, 2013, and KRW 16,600,000 on October 28, 2013 to a deposit account under the name of each defendant, D fully pays the principal and interest on the loan of the instant notarial deed, it asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion E is a loan claim amounting to KRW 40 million out of the loan claim amounting to KRW 20,000,000, which remains at the time of September 25, 2013 while making a monetary transaction with D using a deposit account in the Defendant’s name.