1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 666, 2017, 2017, drafted by D on August 29, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. When concluding a liquor supply contract on August 24, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to provide the Plaintiff with cash support of KRW 25,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,500,000 each month from October 2017 to January 2019.

B. In order to secure the above obligation, when the Plaintiff fails to perform the above obligation with the following contents, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed recognizing that there is no objection even if compulsory execution was conducted (No. 666 of the Money Loan Agreement No. 666 of August 29, 2017, No. 2017, which was signed by a notary public).

C. The Plaintiff fully repaid the above debt.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's claim, since the plaintiff fully repaid the above loan, the claim on the notarial deed of this case was extinguished.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination that the contract term with the Plaintiff was up to August 30, 2020, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay 30% of the cash subsidies as penalty when the transaction is terminated within one year and six months from the date of support. The Plaintiff notified the suspension of transaction around October 2018, and thus the Plaintiff is obliged to pay penalty of KRW 7,500,000, which is 30% of the subsidies, and the instant Notarial Deed guarantees the said obligation.

In light of the language and text of the Notarial Deed as seen earlier, it cannot be interpreted that the Notarial Deed of this case guarantees the obligation to pay a penalty in addition to the above borrowed money. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.