1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is on the notarial deed No. 196, 2013, 2013, No. 2013, Mar. 27, 2013.

1. Facts recognized;

A. By November 2012, the Defendant loaned KRW 65 million to C, and as security, received from the Plaintiff, his father, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the land size of 33 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and received the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate on November 28, 2012.

B. On March 27, 2013, with the Defendant’s consent, the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed, which is the cause of the debtor C, mortgagee E, and maximum debt amount of 50 million won with respect to each of the instant real estate.

C. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 100 million and KRW 100 million at sight on the date of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On the same day, upon commission from the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public drafted a notarial deed that recognizes compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) where the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the said note under the F’s commission from the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that C shall pay KRW 100 million to the Defendant under a condition precedent that the Plaintiff would not recover the Defendant’s claim against C due to the failure of C to repay the obligation to E, with the consent of the Defendant to provide each of the instant real estate as security for borrowing money from E, and that C would not pay the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant due to the security value of each of the instant real estate. The Plaintiff issued the instant bill as security for payment and entrusted the preparation of the authentic deed.

However, since there is no problem in the security value of each real estate of this case until now and the fulfillment of the condition is confirmed, there is no obligation to cause the bill of this case.

Therefore, this is applicable.