1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant on April 24, 2013, with interest rate of KRW 3% per annum; and (b) on the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement to the effect that, if the Defendant did not perform his/her monetary obligation at the notary office C at the notary office in accordance with No. 607, the Defendant would have no objection even if he/she was immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. Upon the lapse of the above period of payment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate under the Changwon District Court E and F (Dupl) for the D apartment Nos. 101 and 1801, the Plaintiff owned the instant notarial deed based on the instant notarial deed, and the said court accepted it on August 23, 2013 and rendered a decision to commence the compulsory auction of real estate.

C. On the other hand, on December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a share sales contract with H, a representative director, to transfer 4,500 shares out of 15,000 shares of G, a corporation owned by the Plaintiff to KRW 100,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to transfer 30% of the shares issued by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”) of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”) whose representative director is the Plaintiff as the repayment of KRW 100 million to H.

Accordingly, since the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 100 million to the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed has been fully repaid and extinguished, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

B. The defendant was merely transferred the shares of G from the plaintiff as a collateral for KRW 100 million, and there was no agreement on payment in kind.

Therefore, the plaintiff's obligation based on the Notarial Deed still remains.

3. First of all, the judgment of this Court is given between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.