1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was prepared.

B. As the Plaintiff failed to pay the above KRW 45 million by December 30, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the claim with the Incheon District Court 2019TT No. 414 on January 9, 2019, based on the instant notarial deed, and the said court accepted the said application on January 11, 2019.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around July 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 45 million from the Defendant on the condition of the fourth (48% per annum) per month; and (b) thereafter, in a situation where it is not well-known about the validity of the notarial deed, the Plaintiff drafted the instant notarial deed at the Defendant’s request on July 2018.

However, until June 2018, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount equivalent to the interest rate of 48% per annum per annum, thereby paying 180 million won per interest item (=1.8 million won per month = 1.8 million won per month (=45 million won per month* 4.4% per month)* 12 months*5 years). Of this, the amount exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act ( approximately KRW 54 million) should be appropriated for the repayment of principal. As such, the principal on the instant authentic deed was already repaid.

I would like to say.

Therefore, since there is no claim on the notarial deed of this case, compulsory execution based on this should be denied.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that money transactions had been conducted from around 2013 under the pretext of loans, fraternitys, etc., and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the amount of the credit remaining in the sense of settling the credit relationship in the past at the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed was KRW 45 million (the total amount of KRW 18 million on March 4, 2016, KRW 20 million on February 16, 2017, KRW 10 million on May 25, 2017, KRW 3 million on repayment on August 19, 2017, KRW 45 million on the ground that the instant notarial deed was prepared, and that the said deed was commenced due to the lack of adequate repayment after the preparation of the notarial deed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3.