1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm number, and a promissory note No. 1188 of 2012 drawn up on November 21, 2012.

1. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed 75 million won from the Defendant, issued a promissory note with a face value of 75 million won and the due date of payment as of June 30, 2013. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed No. 1188 of the number of law firms No. 1188 of 2012 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

On October 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written confirmation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant written confirmation”) that, at the time of completion of installation, C confirms the completion of the payment of the obligation based on the said notarial deed on the E farm located in both weeks (hereinafter referred to as “instant machine”).

With regard to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit (F, 110 Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, 110 Dong-dong 1506), the Defendant applied for the attachment and assignment order of the claim under this Court No. 2015, 9379, and the above court decided on August 7, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1】

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, instead of paying 75 million won for the repayment, was manufactured and installed, and thus, the Plaintiff placed an order for manufacturing and installing a settlement machine of accounts worth eight million won. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation based on the notarial deed of this case was entirely extinguished.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost to C, etc. even though the Plaintiff completed the process of mooring expenses disposal G.

The defendant paid 196880,000 won. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the confirmation of this case, the obligation under the notarial deed of this case decided to be fully repaid at the time of completion of the manufacture and installation of the machinery of this case, and this is premised on the fact that the machinery of this case was installed without any defects, considering the whole purport of the arguments as a whole, in full view of the aforementioned evidence.

However, the defendant is the following table.