Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a law firm No. 1815, Dec. 1, 2011.

Basic Facts

A. On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed for cash consumption (No. 1815, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 1815 on March 1, 201 with the content that “the Plaintiff borrowed 10.5% per annum from the Defendant on March 1, 2010 (Provided, That interest shall be paid every 10 days from July 1, 201 to December 201), the rate of delay damages, and the due date shall be 20% until December 1, 2012. If the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her monetary obligation, a notary public who recognizes and acknowledges that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”

B. On December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued an order of seizure on the Plaintiff’s share in deposit against the UNNN Investment Securities Co., Ltd. based on the authentic copy of the instant notarial deed, which is executory by this Court No. 2015TT 10635.

C. After that, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 31,676,050 on August 31, 2016 from the instant notarial deed in the distribution procedure for dividends of 2016TTT 63 of this Court, which was followed by an order to sell the shares in the Plaintiff’s ownership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 6 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case has no interest in the lawsuit since compulsory execution against the plaintiff's share in the deposit based on the notarial deed of this case has already been completed.

B. There is no benefit to seek non-permission of compulsory execution due to a lawsuit of demurrer after the compulsory execution by executive titles has been completed as a whole, and there is no benefit to seek non-permission of compulsory execution even for the terminated part where compulsory execution has been completed partially.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043 Decided May 29, 2014). In this regard, the Defendant’s share in the Plaintiff’s deposit based on the instant notarial deed.