1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a notarial deed of a Claw Firm, No. 354, 2019.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of monetary loan loan contract No. 354 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) on March 6, 2019 with the creditor as of March 6, 2019 the defendant, debtor as limited company D and E, joint guarantor as to the Plaintiff, and joint guarantor as of KRW 230 million. The Defendant remitted KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff on March 7, 2019, and the Plaintiff returned KRW 200 million to the Defendant on June 26, 2019. In addition, when considering that the Defendant submitted a written reply, there was no specific answer, and the Plaintiff did not specifically dispute the Plaintiff’s claim due to the Plaintiff’s repayment of the loan of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim on the notarial deed of this case was extinguished due to the extinguishment of the Plaintiff’s loan of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is justified.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.