1. A notary public’s B office written by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 112 of 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 15, 2016, at the request of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, at a notary public B office, on the same day, the Plaintiff repaid 62.5 million won (interest 15% per annum, interest 20% per annum, and interest 20%) to the Defendant on January 1, 2016. In two installments, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million on February 23, 2016, and KRW 32.5 million on March 15, 2016, respectively. If the Plaintiff fails to perform this, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of money consumer loan agreement (No. 112, 2016, and hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed”).

B. From February 15, 2016 to the same year, the Plaintiff

3. By the 15th day, the Defendant remitted the sum of KRW 64,647,987 to the Defendant as follows, and paid all principal and interest under the monetary loan contract of this case as set out in the Notarial Deed.

A A A A

C. On August 30, 2016, the Defendant submitted to this court a written answer stating the purport that the Plaintiff received all obligations based on the instant notarial deed from the Plaintiff, and the said written reply was deemed to have been made on October 12, 2016 at the first date for pleading.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s debt arising from the Notarial Deed of this case from February 15, 2016 to the same year.

3. up to 15. It is deemed that the Defendant’s total sum of KRW 64,647,987 was extinguished by repayment of the principal and interest.

Since the defendant also recognized all the plaintiff's repayment through the statement in the response, the confession was established in court.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is no longer permissible.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The written reply presented by the Defendant to the gist of the argument was written by mistake, and in fact, it was omitted in KRW 2,924,000 of the leased principal in the course of preparing the notarial deed of this case.

including an omitted amount.