1. A deed drawn up by a notary public against the defendant of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C on March 27, 2014.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the appointed party C (hereinafter "appointed party") have prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 278 (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) in 2014 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") between the defendant and the defendant on March 27, 2014; the plaintiff and the appointed party transferred 5 million won to the E bank account in defendant's name on June 27, 2014; the amount of debt transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant on April 27, 2014 to the defendant on several occasions; however, the plaintiff and the appointed party transferred the money from the designated party to the defendant's account on more than the sum of the money transferred to the plaintiff and the appointed party.

According to the above facts of recognition, all obligations under the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff and the designated person against the defendant were extinguished.

2. The Defendant’s assertion argues that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff and the Selections several times, and that the money remitted on June 27, 2014 was not received as repayment of the obligation under the instant notarial deed but remitted as repayment of other obligations.

The descriptions of Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1 through 5 are insufficient to recognize that KRW 5 million transferred as of May 27, 2014, in excess of the fact that money transaction had been made several times between the defendant, the plaintiff, and the selected parties, was repaid according to other monetary transactions, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. Accordingly, according to the conclusion, there is no obligation of KRW 5 million on the loan based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant did so.