1. Promissory notes, No. 117, 2014, drawn up on April 18, 2014 by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on charges of violating the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Embezzlement), and the investigation was conducted by Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2012 type No. 38812.

(hereinafter the above case is referred to as "related complaint case"). B.

On April 18, 2014, a notary public made a notarized deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 70 million at the face value as of February 28, 2015 (hereinafter “the primary notarial deed of this case”) at the commission of E, the agent of the defendant and the plaintiff, who is the debtor, on April 18, 2014.

On the same day, the defendant submitted to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office a letter of withdrawal of complaint that the defendant voluntarily agreed with the plaintiff, and all of the complaints were withdrawn.

C. Around 2016, the Defendant started the compulsory execution procedure based on the first notarial deed, and the Plaintiff proposed to the Defendant to make the said notarial deed by failing to enforce compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed, and again preparing the said notarial deed.

Accordingly, on September 23, 2016, D, at the request of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, drafted a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 70 million at sight and face value (hereinafter “the second notarial deed of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant prepared the second notarial deed of this case and agreed not to execute the execution based on the second notarial deed of this case is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the first notarial deed of this case.

As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant also recognized the fact that the second notarial deed of this case was prepared on behalf of the first notarial deed of this case.