1. No. 59, a notary public C belonging to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff of the defendant, prepared on February 25, 2014 by the defendant, No. 2014.

1. On January 30, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant. In this regard, on February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted, at the notary public C office, a notarial deed in a monetary loan agreement with the effect that “if the obligor fails to perform his/her monetary obligation, he/she shall immediately recognize compulsory execution” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed in this case”; and, on January 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted, at the notary public C office, a notarial deed in a monetary loan agreement with the effect that “the creditor (Defendant) shall pay KRW 100 million to the obligor (Plaintiff) on September 30, 2014, and at 12% per annum, if the obligor fails to perform his/her monetary obligation, he/she shall immediately recognize compulsory execution.”

On the other hand, at the office of notary public C on June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff’s wife and the Defendant drafted a promissory note No. 144 on the issue date (hereinafter “instant promissory note No. notarial deed”) regarding “the promissory note No. 4, the payee, the Defendant, and the face value KRW 70,000,000,000, and the issue date June 8, 2015, and June 10, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) around June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff settled the balance remaining after the repayment of the instant loan amount at KRW 70 million; (b) D and the Defendant made the instant promissory note notarial deed, thereby discharging the instant loan obligation from liability; and (c) the Defendant agreed to invalidate the instant notarial deed.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes only prepared by D for the concurrent acceptance of the debt of the instant loan, and that there was no agreement to invalidate the Notarial Deed.

(2) The submission of the judgment (A) document must be the original, and the submission of the evidence by only a copy, not a simple original, is inappropriate in principle as it does not guarantee the accuracy. Thus, the existence of the original document and its existence.