1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 270 of No. 2017, No. 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) entrusted a law firm with the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the content that “a notary public shall pay at the time of repayment of principal by calculating at the rate of KRW 5,533,650 on July 31, 2017 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum; and (b) accordingly, the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the said content (a notary public No. 270, 2017; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was drafted.

B. From January 19, 2018 to March 29, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 69,100,000 in total, including the principal and interest of the loan obligations based on the instant authentic deed, to the Defendant, and additionally paid KRW 141,673 on June 12, 2019 during the instant lawsuit.

C. On the other hand, on October 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) entrusted a law firm E with the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with a creditor, debtor, F, loan 5,533,650 won, and due date on April 30, 2016; (b) accordingly, the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (No. 633, 2015, hereinafter “notarial deed with F”) was written.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence of subparagraphs 5-1 through 5, Eul’s statement of subparagraphs 10 through 12, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserts that the amount of debt against the plaintiff based on the notarial deed of this case is KRW 69,241,673 in total, and the defendant does not dispute the fact that the defendant received the whole amount from the plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, a debt based on the notarial deed of this case shall be deemed to have been extinguished by full repayment of the plaintiff, so compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The defendant is the same amount of debt as the plaintiff borrowed business funds from the defendant while operating both F and the above company as the representative of G Co., Ltd.