1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 376, 2016, drafted by C on June 30, 2016 by C.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3:

On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating the purport of recognizing compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) in the case where a notary public does not perform his/her monetary obligation by a law firm C, and the Defendant lent 4 million won to the Plaintiff by July 5, 2016.

B. From August 27, 2016 to October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the loan on 12 occasions, and the remaining principal became KRW 775,761 as of January 31, 2018.

C. On September 14, 2018, the court of appeal No. 2018Gadan2304, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, rendered final and conclusive judgment that “Compulsory enforcement based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff shall be dismissed only to the extent that it exceeds the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from February 1, 2018 to the date of complete payment, with respect to KRW 775,761, and KRW 707,010 among them.”

Meanwhile, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 214,640 on April 5, 2018 through a compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables. On October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the repayment deposit with the Defendant as the principal deposit under the Bank No. 4278 of 2018, the sum of KRW 595,126 of the loan principal remaining as of October 15, 2018, plus interest of KRW 78,670 from April 6, 2018 to October 15, 2018.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, a compulsory execution based on the above deed shall not be permitted, since a loan obligation based on the Anotarial deed has ceased to exist due to the Plaintiff’s repayment, etc.

3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted.