1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a monetary loan contract for consumption, No. 147, 2001, in the case of an international joint law office.

1. On November 26, 2001, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that a notary public, on which compulsory execution is recognized to the Defendant, prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement No. 147, 2001 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that the Plaintiff shall recognize compulsory execution, but on the following grounds, a compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

Unlike the contents of the Notarial Deed in this case, the Plaintiff was paid only KRW 5 million after deducting KRW 15 million from the Defendant as a fee from KRW 70,000,000.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff satisfied the following obligations to the Defendant.

(i) performance in the course of a compulsory auction by official auction on April 8, 2004 - The Government District Court C’s District Court’s repayment of KRW 10 million (cash) - The total of KRW 10 million (cash) on July 9, 2003 - The repayment of KRW 15 million (15 million) on July 8, 2003; the payment of KRW 5 million on August 14, 2003 - The payment of KRW 2 million on April 8, 2004 (Korean Government District Court Decision 2003Hun-3757) on April 2, 2003 - The repayment of KRW 200,000 in the course of the auction of the Plaintiff’s automobile owned by the Plaintiff (Korean Government District Court Decision 2003Da3757) - The repayment of KRW 15 million on March 8, 2003 - The repayment of KRW 200,3746.274.2.7

C. In addition, on May 25, 2007, the defendant paid KRW 25 million from the plaintiff and promised to liquidate all the obligations based on the Notarial Deed of this case. At the time, the plaintiff tried to pay the total amount of KRW 25 million to the defendant, but the defendant did not prepare and give the receipt, which eventually led to the payment of KRW 20 million. Thus, the defendant's promise is still valid.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Unlike the entry in the notarial deed of this case, which is a disposal document, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid only KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff after deducting KRW 70,000 from the loan to KRW 15,00,000 as a fee, as well as the written statement in the notarial deed of this case.