1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 2115, Nov. 1, 2006, No. 2006, dated November 1, 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2006, at the commission of the plaintiff and the defendant, the notarial deeds of this case were prepared as follows.

On November 1, 2006, the creditor of Article 1 (Purpose) lent KRW 10,000,000 to the debtor and the debtor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Time and Method of Performance) On January 31, 2006, the entry of the above time limit for payment in light of the date of preparation of the Notarial Deed in this case is obvious that it is a clerical error.

up to the date of payment.

Article 3 (Interest) Interest shall be 5% per month, and shall be paid at the end of each month.

When the obligor delays the repayment of principal and interest, the obligor shall pay the obligee damages for delay at the rate of 60% per annum to the delayed principal and interest.

Article 6 (Loss of Due Date) Where an obligor delays the payment of principal and interest, etc., he/she shall naturally lose the benefit of the time limit for the borrowed money and immediately repay all of the remainder of the debt, unless otherwise notified by the obligee.

Article 9 (Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor fails to perform a pecuniary obligation under this contract, the obligor recognized the absence of objection immediately even if compulsory execution has been enforced.

B. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obtained the execution clause on the instant notarial deed; and (b) filed an application for a compulsory execution of corporeal movables with the title of execution (the foregoing court 2014 main text 311); (b) on April 24, 2014, the said court execution officer seized corporeal movables located D, 404 Dong 306, and carried out a family auction.

In the above auction procedure, corporeal movables attached to the plaintiff's spouse was sold at KRW 2.1 million.

Enforcement Officers delivered to the Defendant KRW 1,050,000 (=2.1 million ±(2.60,000), excluding KRW 261,760 of the enforcement costs, KRW 78,240 of the actual sale cost.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was at the site at the time of the above corporeal movables auction.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination:

(a)in respect of action for objection;