1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 2257, May 19, 201, drafted a joint law office.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a notarized deed of monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 2257 on May 19, 201, 201, stating that “A notary public, who was represented by the Defendant, determined on May 2, 201, the maturity period of KRW 30,000 as of October 2, 201, lent it to the Plaintiff (debtor) and borrowed it, and the Plaintiff borrowed it, and that, if the Plaintiff (debtor) did not perform his/her monetary obligation, he/she was immediately aware of the absence of objection even if he/she was subject to compulsory execution.”

B. On December 8, 2017, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s financial institution based on the instant notarial deed ( Daejeon District Court 2017TTTT 59285).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion does not have any fact of borrowing money from the defendant, and thus, the notarial deed of this case is null and void, and compulsory execution based on the notarial deed shall not be permitted.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the Plaintiff, and the notarial deed of this case is valid.

3. As to whether the Defendant lent the amount under the notarial deed of this case to the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the notarial deed of this case is null and void, and compulsory execution based thereon should be dismissed.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.