1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a woman of the deceased C (hereinafter "the deceased"), and the defendant has been living together with the deceased since 2009.

B. On April 20, 2012, the Deceased prepared a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement No. 489 of 2012 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) by a notary public stating that “The amount of KRW 200 million borrowed on February 20, 2009 shall be paid by April 27, 2012, and compulsory execution shall be accepted against the said amount” to the Defendant.

C. The Deceased’s sale of golf products does not exceed “the instant store”

(D) On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, a female member of the deceased, was qualified as a qualified acceptance as the mother, who did not have his or her spouse or lineal descendant, renounces his or her inheritance. D. The Defendant applied for compulsory execution of corporeal movables on March 12, 2014 with the title of execution granted on the instant notarial deed, and applied for compulsory execution of corporeal movables on April 18, 2014 to the Incheon District Court, and the said court’s enforcement officer seized corporeal movables on the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F and fourth floor and conducted a family auction. The corporeal movables on the instant corporeal movables held by the deceased were sold in KRW 72,731,20, and the enforcement officer distributed KRW 71,152,410 on the same day, excluding the execution expenses, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a deed prepared in collusion with the Defendant to avoid compulsory execution based on the price of goods incurred in operating the store of this case without borrowing money from the Defendant, and is an invalid deed by false conspiracy with the Defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted, and there is no obligation of KRW 200 million on the notarial deed of this case, and the defendant is above April 18, 2014.