1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 301, 201, No. 301, the 201.

The following facts are not disputed between us, or may be recognized by taking into account each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including branch numbers), and the whole purport of oral arguments.

On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a maturity of KRW 140 million, payment date at sight, place of payment, place of payment, and place of payment, respectively, in Seoul. On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of promissory notes with the purport that a notary public does not raise any objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution in cases where a notary public delays the payment of the said promissory note under No. 301 at the General Law Office of this day.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Ga3383, the Plaintiff filed an objection to a claim seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of the instant promissory note, and the said court rendered a judgment on June 5, 2013, that “The compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of the instant promissory note against the Plaintiff shall be dismissed only for the portion exceeding KRW 108,590,407,” and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed as the Daejeon High Court Decision 2013Na3079, respectively, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing all the appeals of the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 16, 2014, and the said judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on August 5, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Judgment”). (c)

On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 110,327,767 on the ground of the Defendant’s rejection of receipt, including KRW 108,590,407, and KRW 1,737,360, which was recognized in the previous judgment by Daejeon District Court Decision 2014, supra, and KRW 1,737,360.

According to the above facts of recognition, since there is no Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the exclusion of executory force of the Notarial Deed of this case shall be accepted for reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.