1. A monetary loan agreement No. 353 on June 23, 2016, signed by the defendant against the plaintiff as a notary public C Office against the plaintiff, dated 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff made a loan to the Defendant with interest of KRW 25 million at 24% per annum and on August 30, 2016, respectively. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a monetary consumer loan agreement as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. On February 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a collection order for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Korea Electric Power Corporation by providing “the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 25 million per annum from August 31, 2016, and the annual interest rate of KRW 24% from the leased principal” under the instant notarial deed as the claim claim under this Court’s 2017TTT 642.

In addition, even on August 1, 2017, this Court was issued a seizure and collection order of the same content as this Court 2017TT 5016.

C. The Defendant received KRW 2,889,450, KRW 450 on March 8, 2017, KRW 4,535,60 on April 3, 2017, KRW 200, KRW 26.2,675,670 on April 26, 2017, and KRW 3,03,03, KRW 630 on May 26, 2017, and KRW 4,851,250 on June 27, 2017.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant via D on May 12, 2017. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,879,571 on the instant No. 1268 with the Defendant as the principal deposit in the instant No. 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Considering the content of each claim for the attachment and collection order received by the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the Notarial Deed of this case is the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant at the rate of 24% per annum from August 31, 2016 to the date of full payment.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, since the above debt of the plaintiff, which was the basis of the notarial deed of this case, was fully repaid and extinguished, compulsory execution against the plaintiff of this case shall not be permitted.

As to this, the defendant.