1. The Defendant’s notary public C against the Plaintiff, No. 445 of the 2015 deed drawn up by June 2, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff and the deceased on June 1, 2015: (a) “The Plaintiff shall pay 52,00,000 won to the network D on an annual 25th day of June 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016; (b) shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum if the repayment is delayed; (c) if the payment of installments is delayed on one or more occasions, there shall be no objection even if compulsory execution is delayed; (d) the Notarial Deed No. 1 as described in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “No No. 205”) stating that “The Defendant shall be granted KRW 52,00,000 among the parties concerned on September 1, 2016; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff shall not be granted the instant execution clause on an annual 205,005 won.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s debt remains 22,750,000 won (=52,00,000 won - 29,250,000 won) and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from October 1, 2016. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is dismissed only for the portion exceeding the above amount.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,500,000 on January 30, 2015, KRW 2,500,000 on February 26, 2015, KRW 2,50,000 on March 24, 2015, KRW 2,500,000 on April 23, 2015, KRW 12,50,000 on May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,50,000 on KRW 12,50,00 on May 27, 2015. However, in light of the fact that the time of the Plaintiff’s reimbursement was prior to the preparation of the instant No. 3 and No. 1 and No. 2 on May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion that two other notarial deeds were made between the Plaintiff and the deceased’s notarial deed cannot be ruled out the possibility of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 31.