1. The defendant's document of preparation of a notary public's office against the plaintiff was based on No. 10610, 2009.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 1976, the Plaintiff maintained the marriage relationship with his spouse C by marriage with his spouse C until the closing of the argument in this case.

1. “A” shall pay KRW 100 million to “B” (Defendant) on December 16, 2009.

2. “A” shall pay “B” KRW 2 million as a living cost on the last day of each five-year period from January 2010 to December 2014.

3. “A” and “B”, even if they are hedging within the same period as that of the above paragraph 2, “A” shall pay “B” living expenses without any condition.

4. Where “A” and “B” continue to exist in the Republic of Korea five years after the end of each month, “A” shall pay “B” KRW 2 million on the last day of each month at the cost of living until the end of the year.

5. Where “A” and “B” are hedge, “B” shall not impose any civil claims other than the above living costs on “A”.

B. On December 16, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the following contents, which continued to maintain the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted a notary public office with the preparation of a notarial deed stating that “The Plaintiff shall have a debt of KRW 120 million borrowed from the Defendant on December 16, 2009, and the said borrowed money shall be repaid in installments at the end of every 60 million each month from December 31, 2009 to November 30, 2014,” and accordingly, the said notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) was written.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion of the parties and their determination

A. 1) The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant agreement and the commission of the preparation of the instant notarial deed are an act of bearing a debt on condition of maintaining overlapping relations. Thus, this constitutes an act of anti-social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and thus, is null and void. 2) The Defendant’s assertion.