1. The Defendant’s deed of promissory notes No. 135, No. 2014 against the Plaintiff is based on a notary public C office written by the Defendant.

According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the branch number), and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff issued a promissory note of KRW 60 million at the face value of the defendant as the addressee on October 10, 2014. On the same day, when the payment of the said note is delayed under the notary public C office No. 135 on the same day, a notary public made a notarial deed to the defendant to the effect that he/she does not raise any objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff deposited the above KRW 60 million to the defendant on a deposit basis with the Incheon District Court No. 1637, 2018, the plaintiff paid the above KRW 1,084,308,000 to the defendant's deposit account on July 20, 2018, and the fact that the defendant paid the above compulsory auction by the defendant around April 2018.

According to the above facts, since the obligations of promissory notes under the notarial deed of this case and its enforcement costs have been fully paid, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.