1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 67, 2014, 2014, drawn up on February 18, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On the same day, Sast Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sast”) borrowed KRW 500 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”). On February 18, 2014, the issuer Sast and Non-Party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant loan”) issued one promissory note with the face value of KRW 500 million, and the notary public issued the notarial deed No. 677 of 2014 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the Defendant.

B. On June 21, 2017, the Smist reported the loan claim of KRW 500 million against Smist as rehabilitation claims by the Seoul Rehabilitation Court (2017 Gohap10097) and the Defendant reported the loan claim of KRW 500 million against Smist as rehabilitation claims in the course of the rehabilitation procedure.

C. Meanwhile, around July 2015, Nonparty Company repaid KRW 300 million out of the instant loan to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the debt of the loan of this case against the defendant of the Smist and the non-party company is a joint and several obligation. Thus, the repayment to the defendant of the non-party company is effective against the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s notarial deed of this case against the Plaintiff shall be rejected only on the part exceeding KRW 200,000,000 ( KRW 500,000,000 - KRW 300,00,000) which has not yet been repaid out of the loan of this case.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.